Type 2 deck without Odyssey?
ijjjji
So, how can I beat those pesky Call of the Herd decks with only
Inv/Pls/Apo/7th-cards? What will keep me afloat in type2 until the
next set comes out with reprint of Perish? Help!
NTCryst
If green tokens are what you worry about, Perish is strictly inferior to
Hibernation, which is in 7th.
Hibernation - 2U
7th, Uncommon
Instant
"Return all green permanents to their owner's hands."
BTW, Odyssey is quite worth your money, it's got plenty of good commons and
uncommons, and some rares that are downright excellent. I guess Apocalypse
spoiled you a bit, that's all. Get over it.
--
-= N T C r y s t =-
"Diplomacy is a delicate weapon of a civilized warrior." -- A. the Hun
Steve Lord
> Hi - I hate Odyssey because of sucky rare-cards. I refuse to buy it.
Your loss. There are some bad rares, admittedly -- but you can say that
with, I believe, _every_ set. Some rares I think are good are, off the
top of my head:
Lieutenant Kirtar
Kamahl, Pit Fighter
Seton, Krosan Protector
Balancing Act (Balance-like at twice the cost isn't that bad.)
Delaying Shield
Diabolic Tutor
Epicenter
Haunting Echoes
Hint of Insanity ...
I stopped looking after H.
> So, how can I beat those pesky Call of the Herd decks with only
> Inv/Pls/Apo/7th-cards? What will keep me afloat in type2 until the
> next set comes out with reprint of Perish? Help!
Counter may do it ... but I wouldn't count on it.
Steve L
Karl Allen
> If green tokens are what you worry about, Perish is strictly inferior to
> Hibernation, which is in 7th.
This is technically true, but Perish will probably be better about 80% of
the time, since Green decks never have *only* token creatures. Perish will
kill off the Birds and Elves and Jade Leeches/Shivan Wurms too, instead
of returning them to hand. Of course, Hibernation is Type II legal, while
Perish is not, and Perish is arguably a sub-optimal answer to Beast Attack
at the end of your turn.
> BTW, Odyssey is quite worth your money, it's got plenty of good commons and
> uncommons, and some rares that are downright excellent. I guess Apocalypse
> spoiled you a bit, that's all. Get over it.
Apoc was amazing, and I suspect it'll keep selling for awhile longer because
it's got so many good rares. Odyssey has a large number of terrible rares
(Obstinate Familiar, anything with the word "Shrine" in it, etc) I think
the comparison to Masques is very accurate - it's a step down in power from
the previous set, there are a fairly large number of bad Rares, and it's
got a lot of very interesting cards that will take time to fully utilize.
I remain,
K
DSCreamer
>Your loss. There are some bad rares, admittedly -- but you can say that
>with, I believe, _every_ set. Some rares I think are good are, off the
>top of my head:
>
>Lieutenant Kirtar
>Kamahl, Pit Fighter
>Seton, Krosan Protector
>Balancing Act (Balance-like at twice the cost isn't that bad.)
>Delaying Shield
>Diabolic Tutor
>Epicenter
>Haunting Echoes
>Hint of Insanity ...
>
>I stopped looking after H.
I agree that the set is full of great rares(and uncommons, and commons), but
*Hint of Insanity*? It has uses, but it's not one of the great rares, IMHO.
Yes, it could be of use in a format where Dark Ritual is legal, before they
have a chance to play those doubles....or in R/B LD, where they have trouble
playing cards...or with Upheaval....hmm...
If only I'd gotten it instead of Mudhole. I guess every set needs one TRULY
crap rare. All the others have practical uses.
--
Ha ha ha, you are a funny fish!
PFTMIDTPTWFDTUAPWONTDTEOTALTEORTTSAJJTRBOATSOLSNOPTFMTR! -The Team Rocket
motto, abbreviated
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN\DOS\RUN
Justin Sexton
> Balancing Act (Balance-like at twice the cost isn't that bad.)
Balance at twice the cost would be fantastic, even now. Balancing Act
is far from Balance, though. Sure, some superficial similarities exist
(largely in the name of the card), but it's vastly inferior.
Balance could act as a Mind Twist, Armageddon, and/or Wrath. This can
only do two of those, and that only if you destroy every permament you
own before knowing if the spell will resolve. Short of that, their
most powerful threat will remain on the table, at a minimum. That's
versus a beat down deck.
Versus control, the spell will likely never resolve. Even if it does,
it'll be down to a top decking war. Joy.
A bad, bad card. Sure, there are some interesting interactions, like
with Parallax Wave and Tide, or with Phasing creatures, but it's
generally not worth the effort.
Justin
Matt Parker
> So, how can I beat those pesky Call of the Herd decks
wtf?
all sets have sucky rares.. and if odyssey is pure-"sucky" rares, then call
of the herd decks should just be "Sucky" for you, and you should beat
them...
odyssey has more useful rare cards than invasion...
invasion had more average cards
odyssey is more extreme, cards are REALLY good or REALLY bad...
no middle ground
-mdp
Zeljko Pavlicevic
> with, I believe, _every_ set. Some rares I think are good are, off the
> top of my head:
> Lieutenant Kirtar
> Kamahl, Pit Fighter
> Seton, Krosan Protector
> Balancing Act (Balance-like at twice the cost isn't that bad.)
> Delaying Shield
> Diabolic Tutor
> Epicenter
> Haunting Echoes
> Hint of Insanity ...
Those cards you mentioned above are garbage!!!
I wouldn't give a single common for Kamahl or Seton
The only Good Rares in Odyssey are:
Traumatize
Mirari
Irridiscent Angel
Vampiric Dragon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is Magic in all things.
NTCryst
> The only Good Rares in Odyssey are:
>
> Traumatize
> Mirari
> Irridiscent Angel
> Vampiric Dragon
Vampiric what? When exactly were 8-mana creatures the stuff decks were
constructed of? I'd sooner put Kamahl in my constructed deck (on a side
note, a friend of mine is actually trying a UWR Control deck with a few
Kamahls for a _quick_ kill... 12 Counterspells tend to be enough to protect
'em for 3 turns...). Or a Stalking Bloodsucker. B^j
BTW, surely the Finkeltrator isn't that bad, either. Or Call of the Herd. Or
Haunting Echoes. Or... *grin*
Patrik Linell
wrote:
>> Your loss. There are some bad rares, admittedly -- but you can say that
>> with, I believe, _every_ set. Some rares I think are good are, off the
>> top of my head:
>
>> Lieutenant Kirtar
>> Kamahl, Pit Fighter
>> Seton, Krosan Protector
>> Balancing Act (Balance-like at twice the cost isn't that bad.)
>> Delaying Shield
>> Diabolic Tutor
>> Epicenter
>> Haunting Echoes
>> Hint of Insanity ...
>
>Those cards you mentioned above are garbage!!!
Some of them are, yes.
>I wouldn't give a single common for Kamahl or Seton
I would. I could trade Kamahl to some kid for a good uncommon. That's
net gain.
>The only Good Rares in Odyssey are:
>
>Traumatize
>Mirari
Welcome to Scrub's Corner! Today we look at Mirari, the card every
scrub will be failing to break over the next few months!
>Irridiscent Angel
>Vampiric Dragon
So you wouldn't give a common for Kamahl, but you rank Vampiric
Dragon, which is a Limited bomb but unplayable in Constructed, as one
of the four (count 'em, four) good rares in Odyssey? Puh-leese.
So what you're saying is that Braids Cabal Minion, Entomb, Tainted
Pact, Call of the Herd, Spellbane Centaur, Divert, Extract, Thought
Devourer, Upheaval, Aegis of Honor, Devoted Caretaker, Mystic
Crusader, Mystic Enforcer and Shadowmage Infiltrator all suck?
Patrik Linell
DCI level 1 judge (level 2 being imagined)
Jasper Overman
"Patrik Linell" <p...@claymore.nu> wrote in message
news:3bf90bd...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com...
Tinker-Mirari for Monkey Cage & Draco sound? Mind you, this is a 1-color
2-card combo that only needs 6 mana. Utterly broken.
--
Jasper Overman
DCI Level 1 Judge
Karl Allen
>> Your loss. There are some bad rares, admittedly -- but you can say that
>> with, I believe, _every_ set. Some rares I think are good are, off the
>> top of my head:
>> Lieutenant Kirtar
>> Kamahl, Pit Fighter
>> Seton, Krosan Protector
>> Balancing Act (Balance-like at twice the cost isn't that bad.)
>> Delaying Shield
>> Diabolic Tutor
>> Epicenter
>> Haunting Echoes
>> Hint of Insanity ...
> Those cards you mentioned above are garbage!!!
Some of those cards are not very good, I'd agree. Balancing Act in particular
is terrible, and Hint of Insanity is dreadful. Kamahl is interesting, possibly
as a SB card against U/G Opposition decks (tap him if you want, he'll keep
picking off Birds, Elves, and Herd tokens). Lt. Kirtar should see play if
White Weenie comes back into favor.
> The only Good Rares in Odyssey are:
> Traumatize
> Mirari
> Irridiscent Angel
> Vampiric Dragon
Wow, you managed to pick 4 Rares that are going to be hard to play successfully
in Constructed. Angel and Dragon cost a whole lot, Mirari is tricky to use
right, and Traumatize seems less useful than Haunting Echoes (its frequent
partner in crime). I'd say you missed the following Really Good (Or at Least
Potentially Good) Rares:
Devoted Caretaker
Divine Sacrament
Mystic Crusader
Pianna, Nomad Captain
Divert
Extract (Probably only as a SB card, though)
Persuasion
Time Stretch (Combo decks only, probably)
Braids, Cabal Minion
Entomb
Tainted Pact
Savage Firecat
Call of the Herd
Holistic Wisdom
New Frontiers (Once again, a Combo deck's dream)
Spellbane Centaur
Verdant Succession
Mystic Enforcer
Shadowmage Infiltrator
The 5 Dual Lands (I know some people hate them, but they keep showing up in
top 8 decks at States and elsewhere)
That's over 20 cards, even if you throw out a couple that appeal only to
idiots like myself. There's too many junk rares for my taste, but Odyssey is
not the forsaken wasteland of bad cards you seem to think.
I remain,
K
NTCryst
> That's over 20 cards, even if you throw out a couple that appeal only to
> idiots like myself.
Say, am I lonely in thinking Stalking Bloodsucker is kinda cool? 8^)
He's, like, a fat black flier that grows fatter when fed things like Roar of
the Wurm. How can anyone not like him? 8^)
DSCreamer
>> idiots like myself.
>
>Say, am I lonely in thinking Stalking Bloodsucker is kinda cool? 8^)
>He's, like, a fat black flier that grows fatter when fed things like Roar of
>the Wurm. How can anyone not like him? 8^)
I like him too..don't have any yet, though.
Karl Allen
> "Karl Allen" <kal...@duncan.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>> That's over 20 cards, even if you throw out a couple that appeal only to
>> idiots like myself.
> Say, am I lonely in thinking Stalking Bloodsucker is kinda cool? 8^)
An absolute bomb in Limited, probably not so good in Constructed. Anything
that costs 6 mana to put out needs to be just game-breakingly good. Rith
and Dromar qualify because they're 6/6 flyers that do something potentially
amazing when they hit. The Bloodsucker takes another card to do 6, and doesn't
do anything else besides. His power is card disadvantage against anyone
playing bounce or instant kill like Terminate, and he dies to Flametongue
if you can't pump him up (and you probably can't the turn you play him). I'll
first pick him in Draft over just about any card I can think of, but I
doubt he'll show up in many Constructed decks.
I remain,
K
DSCreamer
>
>Sorry. Odyssey killed fun Magic.
>
>Hey, someone had to say it.
>
Odyssey has BATTLE OF WITS. If that's not a fun card, I don't know what is..
;-)
NTCryst
> >> That's over 20 cards, even if you throw out a couple that appeal only
> >> to idiots like myself.
>
> > Say, am I lonely in thinking Stalking Bloodsucker is kinda cool? 8^)
>
> An absolute bomb in Limited, probably not so good in Constructed. Anything
- - - 8< - - - [snip!]
Goes without saying, of course. I wasn't really serious about it, at least
not in terms of planning for a serious Constructed deck. 8^)
I just like it on a purely fun MtG level. Black fatties like SB have a
special feeling about them. There's just something about actually
kicking the opponent with a beast that is typically inferior to the
similarly priced green one (for example), that makes all the sacrifices (the
mana cost, the additional costs like discarding, saccing creatures left and
right, paying half your life, risking disadvantages versus a simple
2-cc spell like Terminate...) worth it. 8^)
Only in fun Magic, though. Say, fun Magic isn't a dead concept, right? ;^)
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
>
> Only in fun Magic, though. Say, fun Magic isn't a dead concept, right? ;^)
Sorry. Odyssey killed fun Magic.
Hey, someone had to say it.
Chyron
--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his
heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal
"People who think they have a right not to be offended are trouble."
-- Alsee
HCCommander
> In article <9theqq$a41$1...@sunce.iskon.hr>, "NTCryst" <ntc...@mail.inet.hr>
> writes:
>>
>> Only in fun Magic, though. Say, fun Magic isn't a dead concept, right?
>> ;^)
>
> Sorry. Odyssey killed fun Magic.
>
> Hey, someone had to say it.
>
> Chyron
:-)
Speaking a little bit more seriously, I think Odyssey has a great fun
potential. There are combos like Traumatize/Haunting Echoes (was it
Haunting Echoes?) that seem to be too weak for really good tournament decks
but make your opponent look like a car. (Can you say "look like a car" in
English?)
--
Commander
<commander at holycows.de>
(don't write to nu...@holycows.de - it's a "black hole")
HCCommander
> I just like it on a purely fun MtG level. Black fatties like SB have a
> special feeling about them. There's just something about actually
> kicking the opponent with a beast that is typically inferior to the
> similarly priced green one (for example), that makes all the sacrifices
> (the mana cost, the additional costs like discarding, saccing creatures
> left and right, paying half your life, risking disadvantages versus a
> simple 2-cc spell like Terminate...) worth it. 8^)
>
Whenever I play Bribery, my first question is "ok, who has Avatar of Woe in
his deck?"
However, I don't play any black fatties myself. Perhaps I don't feel "bad
enough" to play much black... :-)
T. Swedish
"HCCommander" <nu...@holycows.de> wrote in message
news:9thinj$met$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
> Typing delicately by chy...@ludens.elte.hu resulted with the following:
>
> > In article <9theqq$a41$1...@sunce.iskon.hr>, "NTCryst"
<ntc...@mail.inet.hr>
> > writes:
> >>
> >> Only in fun Magic, though. Say, fun Magic isn't a dead concept, right?
> >> ;^)
> >
> > Sorry. Odyssey killed fun Magic.
> >
> > Hey, someone had to say it.
> >
> > Chyron
>
> :-)
>
> Speaking a little bit more seriously, I think Odyssey has a great fun
> potential. There are combos like Traumatize/Haunting Echoes (was it
> Haunting Echoes?) that seem to be too weak for really good tournament
decks
> but make your opponent look like a car. (Can you say "look like a car" in
> English?)
Umm... I guess that depends what you mean by 'look like a car'
Not that it was unclear from the post
= )
T. Swedish
NTCryst
> > I just like it on a purely fun MtG level. Black fatties like SB have a
> > special feeling about them. There's just something about actually
> > kicking the opponent with a beast that is typically inferior to the
> > similarly priced green one (for example), that makes all the sacrifices
> > (the mana cost, the additional costs like discarding, saccing
> > creatures left and right, paying half your life, risking disadvantages
> > versus a simple 2-cc spell like Terminate...) worth it. 8^)
> >
>
> Whenever I play Bribery, my first question is "ok, who has Avatar of Woe
> in his deck?"
Understandable. 8^)
The sad thing is, if I were in the group you'd be playing with, it's
probably me who'd be on the receiving end of that Bribery... 8^)
> However, I don't play any black fatties myself. Perhaps I don't feel "bad
> enough" to play much black... :-)
Well, I'm pretty sure any credibility I could ever have earned here will be
washed away if I say this, but what the hell... I actually tried to build a
deck with Devouring Strossus on several occasions. Yes, I'm that bad. 8^))
It's, like, the ultimate kiddie card, copies of which I've traded to newbies
and kids for the real stuff like Urza's Rage and Absorb, but a part of me
always wanted to see the baddest, fattest beast in the game's history
(some _were_ fatter, but they didn't have trample, regeneration or flying,
much less ALL THREE) beat my opponent into a bloody pulp in mere 2 turns.
8^)
Coming to think of it... Silly ideas are taking over again... 8^))
Picture, if you dare, a T2 deck with Wild Mongrels and similar stuff that
makes me discard the Strossus, Zombify and maybe Twilight's Call to put him
in play for at least a little less than 9 mana, and Squirrel Nests or
Saproling Symbiosis to feed him... Muwahahaha!
8^))
Trevor Barrie
Patrik Linell <p...@claymore.nu> wrote:
>>> Diabolic Tutor
>>
>>Those cards you mentioned above are garbage!!!
>
>Some of them are, yes.
And some aren't even rares.
>>I wouldn't give a single common for Kamahl or Seton
>
>I would. I could trade Kamahl to some kid for a good uncommon. That's
>net gain.
It's not completely absurd to suggest that Kamahl is Type 2 playable,
actually. He's certainly closer than Vampiric Dragon, at least.
>>The only Good Rares in Odyssey are:
>>
>>Traumatize
>>Mirari
>
>Welcome to Scrub's Corner!
Your sarcasm is one line too late. Mirari's effect is grotesquely
powerful. Its mana requirement is high enough to make it iffy
whether a good deck can be found for it, but a lot of non-scrubs
are at least going to try.
Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
doesn't do anything?
*scratches head*
Well, every time I played against a decent deck with Haunting Echoes,
_every time_ (okay, except one), I lost when the Echoes hit the
table.
Naturally, it doesn't fit in every deck. But to say it "does nothing"
is absurd. You know, Tolarian Academy sucks because it doesn't do
anything by itself.
HCCommander
>
>> However, I don't play any black fatties myself. Perhaps I don't feel "bad
>> enough" to play much black... :-)
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure any credibility I could ever have earned here will
> be washed away if I say this, but what the hell... I actually tried to
> build a deck with Devouring Strossus on several occasions. Yes, I'm that
> bad. 8^))
>
I didn't say "bad" meaning "bad player". I meant the "bad guys", you know?
The opponents of the "good guys".
A friend of mine is going to play all Elder Dragon Legends. (When he gets
them together - he plays no Chronicles.) Of course, they have quite high
cmc, are 3-colored (alltogether 5), have upkeep and only Nicol Bolas has a
really great ability beside flying. But they are kind of cool.
NTCryst
> >> However, I don't play any black fatties myself. Perhaps I don't feel
> >> "bad enough" to play much black... :-)
> >
> > Well, I'm pretty sure any credibility I could ever have earned here will
> > be washed away if I say this, but what the hell... I actually tried to
> > build a deck with Devouring Strossus on several occasions. Yes, I'm
> > that bad. 8^))
> >
>
> I didn't say "bad" meaning "bad player". I meant the "bad guys", you know?
> The opponents of the "good guys".
Yes, I got that.
And it's not a coincidence that in my case either meaning would make a
pretty good point . ;^)
> A friend of mine is going to play all Elder Dragon Legends. (When he gets
> them together - he plays no Chronicles.) Of course, they have quite high
> cmc, are 3-colored (alltogether 5), have upkeep and only Nicol Bolas has a
> really great ability beside flying. But they are kind of cool.
Why not an all-dragon deck? Add all the Invasion Dragons, perhaps even
Vampiric Dragon, some Dragon Arches, Counterspells to protect the Arches -
and you have a perfectly reasonable deck to make yourself a kids' hero with.
8^)
NTCryst
> >> However, I don't play any black fatties myself. Perhaps I don't feel
"bad
> >> enough" to play much black... :-)
> >
> > Well, I'm pretty sure any credibility I could ever have earned here will
> > be washed away if I say this, but what the hell... I actually tried to
> > build a deck with Devouring Strossus on several occasions. Yes, I'm
> > that bad. 8^))
> >
>
> I didn't say "bad" meaning "bad player". I meant the "bad guys", you know?
> The opponents of the "good guys".
Yes, I got that.
And it's not a coincidence that in my case either meaning would make a
pretty good point . ;^)
> A friend of mine is going to play all Elder Dragon Legends. (When he gets
> them together - he plays no Chronicles.) Of course, they have quite high
> cmc, are 3-colored (alltogether 5), have upkeep and only Nicol Bolas has a
> really great ability beside flying. But they are kind of cool.
Why not an all-dragon deck? Add all the Invasion Dragons, perhaps even
Vampiric Dragon, some Dragon Arches, Counterspells to protect the Arches -
and you have a perfectly reasonable deck to make yourself a kids' hero with.
8^)
Patrik Linell
tba...@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org (Trevor Barrie) wrote:
>In article <3bf90bd...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com>,
>Patrik Linell <p...@claymore.nu> wrote:
>It's not completely absurd to suggest that Kamahl is Type 2 playable,
>actually. He's certainly closer than Vampiric Dragon, at least.
That he is.
>>>The only Good Rares in Odyssey are:
>>>
>>>Traumatize
>>>Mirari
>>
>>Welcome to Scrub's Corner!
>
>Your sarcasm is one line too late. Mirari's effect is grotesquely
>powerful. Its mana requirement is high enough to make it iffy
>whether a good deck can be found for it, but a lot of non-scrubs
>are at least going to try.
Yeah, I guess. But I don't think they'll make it, except maybe in some
kind of combo deck. The same way Donate wasn't played before Trix.
>Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
I disagree. It can be used to deck the opponent quite efficiently.
Trevor Barrie
>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>
>I'll give you Traumatize, but Haunting Echoes? Haunting Echoes
>doesn't do anything?
Were you around when Ice Age came out? At the time, Jester's Cap
sold for over $20. Some people even thought the card was broken.
It took a while before people realized that spending a card and
5 mana just to muck around with cards that your opponent _might_
draw in the future just isn't a good idea.
Now, Haunting Echoes has a much more impressive effect than
Jester's Cap, so I'll grant that there's at least some chance
that it might be playable. But look at it this way: if your
opponent has threats already in hand or on the board for which
you need an answer, you're definitely not going to be happy to
draw this thing. OTOH, if you're playing a decent control deck
and you've dealt with their currently available threats already,
you should be able to win without silly tricks like this. I've
heard Standstill described as a "Win More" card, but it's a much
more apt description for Haunting Echoes.
(Hmmm. Now that I think about it some more, it occurs to me I've
been assuming blue-black control here. Decks without blue that
rely on black for their disruption are often vulnerable to
having a bomb top-decked, and might want to use an Echoes or two
to deal with that. I'm inclined to think there would be better
answers, though.)
Trevor Barrie
Patrik Linell <p...@claymore.nu> wrote:
>>Your sarcasm is one line too late. Mirari's effect is grotesquely
>>powerful. Its mana requirement is high enough to make it iffy
>>whether a good deck can be found for it, but a lot of non-scrubs
>>are at least going to try.
>
>Yeah, I guess. But I don't think they'll make it, except maybe in some
>kind of combo deck. The same way Donate wasn't played before Trix.
Donate is much more obviously a combo card than Mirari, though. Under
normal circumstances, giving away one of your permanents is bad, while
doubling the power of all of your instants and sorceries is, well,
rather good.
Off-the-top non-combo Mirari deck:
4 Mirari
4 Opt
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Prophetic Bolt
4 Urza's Rage
4 Rampant Growth
4 Harrow
4 Counterspell
4 Aether Burst
2 Restock
26 Land of various sorts
I'd be pretty surprised if that was playable as is (for one thing, it's
64 cards!) but I think it's worth testing and tweaking. Other options
include straight green-red with mana acceleration, burn, and the
already borderline broken token generators, which would become
completely insane in the late game with Mirari; or straight blue-red
counterburn.
>>Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>
>I disagree. It can be used to deck the opponent quite efficiently.
I would suggest that Millstone is clearly better, and neither is
all that great in an environment filled with Call of the Herd, Beast
Attack, and the occasional Firebolt, as they're likely to just hand
your opponent massive card advantage.
(I could see making a deck where you plan to Traumatize yourself,
but I suspect whatever you were trying to do could be done better
some other way.)
jared.bartley
> (I could see making a deck where you plan to Traumatize yourself,
> but I suspect whatever you were trying to do could be done better
> some other way.)
What about Nefarious Lich? I cant remember the exact text but i seem to
recall it sounded like an interesting plan.
Karl Allen
> I'll give you Traumatize, but Haunting Echoes? Haunting Echoes
> doesn't do anything?
It doesn't change the *current* game state in any major way (other than
taking cards out of your opponent's graveyard and putting one card in yours,
which in most games doesn't matter much). If you're losing with what's
currently in play, you'll still be losing after you pay the 5 mana and the
card. Echoes can only affect the future, by manipulating what your opponent
can draw. If he's already drawn what it will take to kill you, Echoes can't
help you any. And having to wait until turn 5 to cast it (and maybe longer
since you'll want to get plenty of stuff in their graveyard before you Echoes)
means your opponent has ample time to put together a collection of cards
to kill you with. If you can get to the point that your opponent is living
off the top of their deck then Echoes can be amazing, but in the meantime
it won't help you get there.
> Well, every time I played against a decent deck with Haunting Echoes,
> _every time_ (okay, except one), I lost when the Echoes hit the
> table.
Play some more. I wouldn't say Haunting Echoes is useless; heck, it might
even be good. But any deck that plays it will have plenty of "Oops" moments
when it realizes that it's just no good in the current situation. That's
okay - lots of good cards can be useless at times, and they still get played.
But I'd say Echoes is a fairly specialized card that may or may not see
serious Constructed play, as opposed to a Powerhouse Rare.
I remain,
K
John Hwang
><chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote:
>>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
No. Traumatize is a 5-mana Mill for a couple dozen cards. *That* is what
Traumatize does -- it dramatically speeds up the process of running the
opponent out of cards.
IMNSHO, a "scrub" is someone can't recognize an alternate win condition besides
mindless burn and beatdown.
>>I'll give you Traumatize, but Haunting Echoes? Haunting Echoes
>>doesn't do anything?
Haunting Echoes is a supporting card -- it's only good if your opponent has
already been Traumatized, and now you need to pull another dozen or more cards
out of his library.
>Were you around when Ice Age came out? At the time, Jester's Cap
>sold for over $20. Some people even thought the card was broken.
>It took a while before people realized that spending a card and
>5 mana just to muck around with cards that your opponent _might_
>draw in the future just isn't a good idea.
Depends on the deck. If you manage to Cap a deck with only a few win
conditions (classic control or combo), that's probably game.
>Now, Haunting Echoes has a much more impressive effect than
>Jester's Cap, so I'll grant that there's at least some chance
>that it might be playable.
It's playable, but you need to build around it. It's a mega-Lobotomy for 5 --
that's pretty darn good if you need to strip future threats. In a counterspell
deck, if you can survive to this point, that means you're that much closer to
having answers and possibly multiple answers for *all* of remaining threats
which will appear.
>But look at it this way: if your
>opponent has threats already in hand or on the board for which
>you need an answer, you're definitely not going to be happy to
>draw this thing.
Depends on the clock.
>OTOH, if you're playing a decent control deck
>and you've dealt with their currently available threats already,
>you should be able to win without silly tricks like this. I've
>heard Standstill described as a "Win More" card, but it's a much
>more apt description for Haunting Echoes.
Not necessarily. Control is strictly limited in the number of counters which
are playable. It's hard to play 40+ counters, but it's easy to play 40+
threats (e.g. Stompy). Traumatize and Haunting Echoes are ways to achieve card
advantage towards total threats which need to be dealt with, in addition, they
dramatically accelerate towards the "decking" win condition.
>(Hmmm. Now that I think about it some more, it occurs to me I've
>been assuming blue-black control here. Decks without blue that
>rely on black for their disruption are often vulnerable to
>having a bomb top-decked, and might want to use an Echoes or two
>to deal with that. I'm inclined to think there would be better
>answers, though.)
IMO, neither of these are bad cards. But neither can just be tossed in
willy-nilly. They're designed for very specific sorts of decks.
--- John Hwang "JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Karl Allen
>>>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
> No. Traumatize is a 5-mana Mill for a couple dozen cards.
That's a highly unlikely scenario, I would think. To mill "a couple dozen
cards", your opponent would have to have 8 *different* cards in his graveyard,
be playing 4 of each of these cards, and have no duplicates of them in his hand.
If he's got duplicate cards in the graveyard, is holding duplicates of what's
in the graveyard in hand, or isn't playing 4 of each card, you're not likely
to net as many cards. Unless you're playing a Millstone/Traumatize/Echoes
deck I wouldn't figure it would snag more than 12-15 cards, depending on a
lot of factors. But I have researched enough to be sure.
>*That* is what
> Traumatize does -- it dramatically speeds up the process of running the
> opponent out of cards.
And Scorching Missile dramatically speeds up the process of your opponent
going to 0 life or less. It's cold comfort to know your opponent was "closer"
to losing the game after a card is played if you end up losing first, though.
> IMNSHO, a "scrub" is someone can't recognize an alternate win condition
> besides mindless burn and beatdown.
Trust me, several of us that think Echoes is only borderline playable (if that)
recognize alternate win conditions. Some of us have even made Cromat/Coalition
Victory decks, for all the good that did us.
> Haunting Echoes is a supporting card -- it's only good if your opponent has
> already been Traumatized, and now you need to pull another dozen or more cards
> out of his library.
If Echoes is only good if your opponent has been Traumatized, then it sucks.
A 5 mana Sorcery that relies on you first casting another 5 mana Sorcery (in
a different color, no less) to be good just doesn't scare me. Luckily I think
Echoes is more flexible than that - I think it could be very interesting with
discard, like Duress and Gerard's Verdict. It doesn't *have* to couple with
Traumatize to have a chance.
I remain pretty sure Haunting Echoes won't be winning any PTQs,
K
Mark Lathem
>Were you around when Ice Age came out? At the time, Jester's Cap
>sold for over $20. Some people even thought the card was broken.
>It took a while before people realized that spending a card and
>5 mana just to muck around with cards that your opponent _might_
>draw in the future just isn't a good idea.
I was indeed around when Ice Age came out, and it didn't take a while
for people to realize that spending 4+ mana to muck around with a few
cards wasn't a good idea. It took a while for people to quit playing
decks that could be completely disabled by a 'Cap or two.
When Jester's Cap came out, *the* deck was The Deck (and its
variants), and in that environment Jester's Cap was well worth the
cost (in mana, not $$).
--
Mark Lathem
http://lathem.home.mindspring.com/pipes/
David DeLaney
>John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>>>>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>>>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>
>> No. Traumatize is a 5-mana Mill for a couple dozen cards.
>
>That's a highly unlikely scenario, I would think. To mill "a couple dozen
>cards", your opponent would have to have 8 *different* cards in his graveyard,
>be playing 4 of each of these cards, and have no duplicates of them in his hand.
Psst. Karl. You're criticizing Haunting Echoes there, not Traumatize.
Traumatize doesn't care how many of each card is where, only how many
total are in the library.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "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://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
John Hwang
>John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>>>>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>>>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>
>> No. Traumatize is a 5-mana Mill for a couple dozen cards.
>
>That's a highly unlikely scenario, I would think. To mill "a couple dozen
>cards", your opponent would have to have 8 *different* cards in his
>graveyard, be playing 4 of each of these cards, and have no duplicates
>of them in his hand.
No. For *Traumatize* to mill a "couple dozen" (24) cards, the opponent only
needs to have about 48 cards in library -- this is doable.
For *Haunting Echoes* to pull 24 cards, the above situation needs to apply.
>If he's got duplicate cards in the graveyard, is holding duplicates of what's
>in the graveyard in hand, or isn't playing 4 of each card, you're not likely
>to net as many cards. Unless you're playing a Millstone/Traumatize/Echoes
>deck I wouldn't figure it would snag more than 12-15 cards, depending on a
>lot of factors. But I have researched enough to be sure.
Right. But one assumes a deck built for synergy, so that would be most
reasonable.
>>*That* is what
>> Traumatize does -- it dramatically speeds up the process of running the
>> opponent out of cards.
>
>And Scorching Missile dramatically speeds up the process of your opponent
>going to 0 life or less. It's cold comfort to know your opponent was "closer"
>to losing the game after a card is played if you end up losing first, though.
True.
>> IMNSHO, a "scrub" is someone can't recognize an alternate win condition
>> besides mindless burn and beatdown.
>
>Trust me, several of us that think Echoes is only borderline playable (if
>that) recognize alternate win conditions. Some of us have even made
>Cromat/Coalition Victory decks, for all the good that did us.
Like Cowardice, Echoes is a card you build the entire deck around. Playing
control, this is a good card.
>> Haunting Echoes is a supporting card -- it's only good if your opponent has
>> already been Traumatized, and now you need to pull another dozen or
>> more cards out of his library.
>
>If Echoes is only good if your opponent has been Traumatized, then it sucks.
>A 5 mana Sorcery that relies on you first casting another 5 mana Sorcery (in
>a different color, no less) to be good just doesn't scare me. Luckily I think
>Echoes is more flexible than that - I think it could be very interesting with
>discard, like Duress and Gerard's Verdict. It doesn't *have* to couple with
>Traumatize to have a chance.
True. You just need something to fill the graveyard. Traumatize is a fast way
of doing that. Discard is bit quicker, but not much different from Counter.
>I remain pretty sure Haunting Echoes won't be winning any PTQs,
We won't know until all the PTQs are in. :)
Karl Allen
>>That's a highly unlikely scenario, I would think. To mill "a couple dozen
>>cards", your opponent would have to have 8 *different* cards in his
>>graveyard, be playing 4 of each of these cards, and have no duplicates
>>of them in his hand.
> No. For *Traumatize* to mill a "couple dozen" (24) cards, the opponent only
> needs to have about 48 cards in library -- this is doable.
> For *Haunting Echoes* to pull 24 cards, the above situation needs to apply.
Duh, bad Karl. Read too fast and mixed the two up in my head.
>>If Echoes is only good if your opponent has been Traumatized, then it sucks.
>>A 5 mana Sorcery that relies on you first casting another 5 mana Sorcery (in
>>a different color, no less) to be good just doesn't scare me. Luckily I think
>>Echoes is more flexible than that - I think it could be very interesting with
>>discard, like Duress and Gerard's Verdict. It doesn't *have* to couple with
>>Traumatize to have a chance.
> True. You just need something to fill the graveyard. Traumatize is a fast
> way of doing that. Discard is bit quicker, but not much different from
> Counter.
The biggest difference I can think of is that if you're sitting back on
Counters you're letting them dictate how fast their graveyard fills up, and
with what. With Discard (especially Duress, Verdict, and Addle) you get to
choose what you'll knock out, and how many. Counters can't get a Kavu Chameleon
or Blurred Mongoose into the graveyard, either. Of course, you'll never get to
look at a 5/5 Dodecapod from casting an Undermine. :-)
>>I remain pretty sure Haunting Echoes won't be winning any PTQs,
> We won't know until all the PTQs are in. :)
For sure. I'm reasonably confident that Echoes won't work out, but people
have a couple years to try and get something going. I definitely think there
will be some very fun Tier 2 decks that use it, in which you'll have a
decent chance to be able to get your opponent into a state where they have
like 12 cards in their library, all of them lands.
I remain,
K
Watman
> but I suspect whatever you were trying to do could be done better
> some other way.)
yup, this kind of deck already exists... my friend plays it - b/u agressive
with traumatize and psychatog to feed on these cards - and it's not a fun
deck - second in fnm last friday (out of 18)
--
Cpt WATMAN of GAB Fiery Red Ewok Team
watman(at)manowar-fanclub.prv.pl
Proud Founding Member of the M:tG Team "102 Dalmatynczyki"
"Every light I see is green " - ManOwaR - "Wheels of Fire"
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>>>If Echoes is only good if your opponent has been Traumatized, then it sucks.
>>>A 5 mana Sorcery that relies on you first casting another 5 mana Sorcery (in
>>>a different color, no less) to be good just doesn't scare me. Luckily I think
>>>Echoes is more flexible than that - I think it could be very interesting with
>>>discard, like Duress and Gerard's Verdict. It doesn't *have* to couple with
>>>Traumatize to have a chance.
>
>> True. You just need something to fill the graveyard. Traumatize is a fast
>> way of doing that. Discard is bit quicker, but not much different from
>> Counter.
>
>The biggest difference I can think of is that if you're sitting back on
>Counters you're letting them dictate how fast their graveyard fills up, and
>with what. With Discard (especially Duress, Verdict, and Addle) you get to
>choose what you'll knock out, and how many. Counters can't get a Kavu Chameleon
>or Blurred Mongoose into the graveyard, either. Of course, you'll never get to
>look at a 5/5 Dodecapod from casting an Undermine. :-)
>
I think I have to agree with Karl's initial post here. OK, I'm FAR
from a good deck builder/tuner. But I really can't see the synergy in
playing Trauma/Echo. It SOUNDS good. But as stated, you need the
Trauma for the Echo. If I was wanting to build a deck that did this,
I'd be working on a Trauma/Recoup deck. Counter/Burn with the sped up
mill. Simply put, what does Trauma/Echo really do that a double or
triple Trauma wouldn't? If by turn 5, 7 and 8, (Trauma, turn 6 for
Anarchist, Trauma Re-Trauma) you can get off three Traumatizes, your
opponent has less than 6 cards in his library(24 + 11 + 5 = 40 + 15
cards drawn). A couple of other mill effects, and it's a pretty big
lockdown. Assuming you can maintain control until then with counters,
control burn, and the occasional utility creature, I feel this is a
much better way of accomplishing the same goal.
I'd give a much better decklist other than
Recoup+Anarchist+Counter+Trauma and probably making the deck close to
60-40 or more in favour of Blue (heavy Blue requirement in it's main
spells, not a lot of Red specific), but as I said before, I'm not the
best deck tuner. If I was, I might be playing in tournaments.
Morgan Vening
jared.bartley
It was scribbled down late last night so feel free to rip to shreds:
3 x Anavolver
4 x Birds of Paradise
2 x Kavu Chameleon
4 x Mystic Snake
3 x Spiritmonger
4 x Counterspell
4 x Haunting Echoes
4 x Syncopate
4 x Traumatize
4 x Undermine
6 x Swamp
6 x Forest
12 x Island
Let me know what you think, Thanks in advance
Jared
John Hwang
>Karl Allen <kal...@duncan.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>But I really can't see the synergy in
>playing Trauma/Echo. It SOUNDS good. But as stated, you need the
>Trauma for the Echo. If I was wanting to build a deck that did this,
>I'd be working on a Trauma/Recoup deck. Counter/Burn with the sped up
>mill. Simply put, what does Trauma/Echo really do that a double or
>triple Trauma wouldn't?
It lets you work with more cards to accomplish your goal, giving greater
consistency overall. Planning to fetch, much less draw, 2 or 3 out of 4
Traumatizeis much harder than trying to get 1 out of 4 Traumatize and 1 out of
4 Echoes.
John Hwang
>>>It doesn't *have* to couple with Traumatize to have a chance.
>
>> True. You just need something to fill the graveyard. Traumatize is a
>> fast way of doing that. Discard is bit quicker, but not much different
>> from Counter.
>
>The biggest difference I can think of is that if you're sitting back on
>Counters you're letting them dictate how fast their graveyard fills up, and
>with what. With Discard (especially Duress, Verdict, and Addle) you get to
>choose what you'll knock out, and how many. Counters can't get a Kavu
>Chameleon or Blurred Mongoose into the graveyard, either.
Right. And Discard is vulnerable to top-decking a bomb. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to;
ketchup, catsup. As I noted, a bit quicker, but not much different. Either
way, something can get through, and the deck needs an answer to that.
>Of course, you'll never get to look at a 5/5 Dodecapod from casting an
Undermine. :-)
>
>>>I remain pretty sure Haunting Echoes won't be winning any PTQs,
>
>> We won't know until all the PTQs are in. :)
>
>For sure. I'm reasonably confident that Echoes won't work out, but people
>have a couple years to try and get something going. I definitely think there
>will be some very fun Tier 2 decks that use it, in which you'll have a
>decent chance to be able to get your opponent into a state where they have
>like 12 cards in their library, all of them lands.
I'm thinking that someone will main-deck an Echoes or two in a Finkel deck for
additional control over Threshold and Flashback-oriented decks.
Trevor Barrie
John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>
>No. Traumatize is a 5-mana Mill for a couple dozen cards.
Which usually amounts to doing nothing.
>IMNSHO, a "scrub" is someone can't recognize an alternate win condition
>besides mindless burn and beatdown.
You mean I was less of a scrub back when I was playing poison decks?
First time anybody suggested that.:)
Recognizing alternate win conditions is a nice start, but you also
need to analyze them and decide whether they're actually worth trying
for. Given Traumatize's clear inferiority to Millstone and the
questionability of milling at all in an environment full of flashback,
I can't see it being worthwhile.
>>Were you around when Ice Age came out? At the time, Jester's Cap
>>sold for over $20. Some people even thought the card was broken.
>>It took a while before people realized that spending a card and
>>5 mana just to muck around with cards that your opponent _might_
>>draw in the future just isn't a good idea.
>
>Depends on the deck. If you manage to Cap a deck with only a few win
>conditions (classic control or combo), that's probably game.
I was going to mention that, but didn't think it relevant to the
main point. Jester's Cap may be a viable sideboard option at times,
but it's still hardly an amazing card.
(And note that this fact doesn't really help Haunting Echoes look
any better: in the one situation where Jester's Cap was actually
playable, Haunting Echoes won't work.)
John Hwang
>John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>>>>> Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
>>>>> Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>>
>>No. Traumatize is a 5-mana Mill for a couple dozen cards.
>
>Which usually amounts to doing nothing.
... to affect the current board position. However, in a control deck, it's
often worthwhile to burn a card to protect against several the future.
>Given Traumatize's clear inferiority to Millstone and the
>questionability of milling at all in an environment full of flashback,
>I can't see it being worthwhile.
If playing counter/control, I'd rather have to counter just the flashback than
to counter the initial casting and then also have to counter the flashback.
It's a significant reduction in future threats.
The only thing which makes it questionable is that it gives the opponent
automatic Threshold.
Trevor Barrie
John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>>Given Traumatize's clear inferiority to Millstone and the
>>questionability of milling at all in an environment full of flashback,
>>I can't see it being worthwhile.
>
>If playing counter/control, I'd rather have to counter just the flashback than
>to counter the initial casting and then also have to counter the flashback.
>It's a significant reduction in future threats.
At the cost of a significant increase in _immediate_ threats. That doesn't
seem like a great trade to me.
John Hwang
Shouldn't be that many or are you somehow assuming infinite mana? Flashback
for free? Better to assume that Echoes or something is coming up to neutralize
such threats or one probably wouldn't Traumatize.
David Welsh
>At the cost of a significant increase in _immediate_ threats. That doesn't
>seem like a great trade to me.
>
How many spells with Flashback are seeing regular tournament play in your area?
Call of the Herd is the only one that comes up regularly on deck lists, and
that's a creature-based threat so a well-designed control deck should be able to
handle it easily. Since the deck is designed for a Millstone strategy and is
playing blue, it should have plenty of counterspells. The opponent is unlikely
to play more than one or two spells per turn, whether from the graveyard or
hand.
If Flashback cards play so large a role in your local metagame that they
constitute a serious threat, use Tombfire and perhaps even Catalyst Stone.
David Welsh
--
"They have tightly bound my body, but my soul is beyond their power."
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Trevor Barrie
John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>>>If playing counter/control, I'd rather have to counter just the
>>> flashback than to counter the initial casting and then also have
>>> to counter the flashback.
>>
>>>It's a significant reduction in future threats.
>>
>>At the cost of a significant increase in _immediate_ threats. That
>>doesn't seem like a great trade to me.
>
>Shouldn't be that many or are you somehow assuming infinite mana? Flashback
>for free?
No, why would I be assuming that? An immediate threat is one which the
opponent is capable of playing right now; the fact that he or she can't
play all of them at once is irrelevant. And knowing that the Traumatize
has left me with more than enough counters in my deck to handle my
opponent's threats is small consolation when I run out of counters in
hand a turn or two after Traumatizing.
>Better to assume that Echoes or something is coming up to neutralize
>such threats or one probably wouldn't Traumatize.
But now we're not just talking about a high casting-cost sorcery which
doesn't affect the board at all; we're talking about two such sorceries
where you need both for them to be good. Does this really sound like a
good idea for a deck? As an analogy, Hibernation+Hermit Crab would win
you the game much more reliably than Traumatize+Haunting Echoes, it
cost less mana, and the two cards were more useful individually, but
decks built around this combo were Tier 2 at best.
Trevor Barrie
David Welsh <mo...@usa.net> wrote:
>In article <9ufl89$g2v$1...@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org>, Trevor Barrie says...
>>At the cost of a significant increase in _immediate_ threats. That doesn't
>>seem like a great trade to me.
>
>How many spells with Flashback are seeing regular tournament play in your
>area?
Call of the Herd and Beast Attack, obviously. Occasionally Firebolt,
which may well constitute a threat by the time you Traumatize. Also
Engulfing Flames, but this is nothing which need concern a control
deck.
It also seems reasonable to expect there'll be more in Odyssey Block
Constructed, which is the only place you should even think about
Traumatizing your opponent given the presence of Millstone in Type 2.
John Hwang
>>Better to assume that Echoes or something is coming up to
>>neutralize such threats or one probably wouldn't Traumatize.
>
>But now we're not just talking about a high casting-cost sorcery >which
doesn't affect the board at all; we're talking about two
>such sorceries where you need both for them to be good. Does
>this really sound like a good idea for a deck?
No. But does it really sound like a good idea for a player to place themselves
at a long-term disadvantage? Hence, if he's casting the one, it should be
inferred that he has an answer ready for the consequences.
Erich Leibrock
news:3bff693...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com...
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:39:02 +0000 (UTC),
> tba...@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org (Trevor Barrie) wrote:
>
> >In article <3bf90bd...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com>,
> >Patrik Linell <p...@claymore.nu> wrote:
>
> >Your sarcasm is one line too late. Mirari's effect is grotesquely
> >powerful. Its mana requirement is high enough to make it iffy
> >whether a good deck can be found for it, but a lot of non-scrubs
> >are at least going to try.
>
> Yeah, I guess. But I don't think they'll make it, except maybe in some
> kind of combo deck. The same way Donate wasn't played before Trix.
That's only because Donate wasn't printed until Urza's Destiny. Before then,
however, Trix was still POSSIBLE, running things like Juxtapose and
Gauntlets of Chaos - and some peopl were doing it too. Donate just made it
that much easier (being cheaper for one).
And Mirari needs nothing to combo with, almost like Fork doesn't need
anything to combo with, simply because it can duplicate ANY sorcery or
instant you play. Granted, certain ones are almost pointless (like Wrath of
God), but if a spell has a single thing it can hit (I was going to say
"target" but it will even effect untargetables - think Chainer's/ Diabolic
Edict), it's Mirariable.
> >Traumatize, OTOH, like its partner Haunting Echoes, is a 5-mana
> >Sorcery that doesn't DO anything. That's a scrub card.
>
> I disagree. It can be used to deck the opponent quite efficiently.
Blue's best bet most of the time is racing your opponent's DECK - ie, not
what's on the board. Knock off his library and he's got no resources left.
Is there anything left in Type 2 that lets you skip your draw phase? All I
can think of is Obstinate Familiar, which will help against this to a small
degree (harder to make you lose for not being able to draw if you're not
drawing anything)..
Erich
Erich Leibrock
message news:3C04C1AC...@durham.ac.uk...
(re: Trying to make a viable TraumEchoes deck)
You can always throw in the Familiars.. I don't know if I'd bother with the
Volvers, since they tend not to be that great unless double-kicked. Dropping
the Familiars will help you out a lot - say, Turn 1 BoP, Turn 2 Nightscape
Familiar followed by Stormscape Familiar. Recoil can help as well. Now, with
Torment out, you might want to consider a couple of Ambassador Laquatus to
help you mill your opponent. Cephalid Coliseum can fit the bill as well.
Doing this, you might even be able to cut out the Green altogether.
(Hopefully you didn't just put it in for the Monger!)
How about:
4 Counterspell
4 Syncopate
4 Chainer's Edict
4 Recoil
4 Traumatize
4 Haunting Echoes
4 Nightscape Familiar
4 Stormscape Familiar
2 Ambassador Laquatus
2 Sengir Vampire
4 Underground River
4 Tainted Isle
4 Cephalid Colisseum
8 Swamp
4 Island
It's a thought.. it's also only two colors so will be a little more
consistent.
Erich
Erich Leibrock
news:9ui6vh$72h$1...@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org...
> In article <20011203161250...@mb-fk.news.cs.com>,
> John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
> >>>If playing counter/control, I'd rather have to counter just the
> >>> flashback than to counter the initial casting and then also have
> >>> to counter the flashback.
> >>
> >>>It's a significant reduction in future threats.
> >>
> >>At the cost of a significant increase in _immediate_ threats. That
> >>doesn't seem like a great trade to me.
> >
> >Shouldn't be that many or are you somehow assuming infinite mana?
Flashback
> >for free?
>
> No, why would I be assuming that? An immediate threat is one which the
> opponent is capable of playing right now; the fact that he or she can't
> play all of them at once is irrelevant. And knowing that the Traumatize
> has left me with more than enough counters in my deck to handle my
> opponent's threats is small consolation when I run out of counters in
> hand a turn or two after Traumatizing.
I think Traumatize is more powerful than you think. Don't forget, you're not
only eating up threat cards but mana sources as well. Think about it. You
and I play a game, it's been five turns each, I've been countering a fair
amount, and you went first. We've both played lands on most of our turns,
and I'm playing Black/Blue, and have a Nightscape Familiar in play now. If I
Traumatize you, I've likely knocked out a good eight or so mana sources, and
a large number of good cards in your deck. I now have access to about twice
as many threats as you do, which puts me in a better position in a couple of
ways. Sure, it doesn't help the board situation any, but Blue doesn't look
at the board as much as as other colors (with the exception of cards like
Boomerang). A single Traumatize under the circumstances I mentioned would
knock 24 cards straight into your graveyard. If I'm able to pull off a
second one relatively soon, you're down to less than a dozen cards left to
work with. But even the first one causes a lot of pain.
> >Better to assume that Echoes or something is coming up to neutralize
> >such threats or one probably wouldn't Traumatize.
>
> But now we're not just talking about a high casting-cost sorcery which
> doesn't affect the board at all; we're talking about two such sorceries
> where you need both for them to be good. Does this really sound like a
> good idea for a deck? As an analogy, Hibernation+Hermit Crab would win
> you the game much more reliably than Traumatize+Haunting Echoes, it
> cost less mana, and the two cards were more useful individually, but
> decks built around this combo were Tier 2 at best.
Granted, Haunting Echoes isn't very useful until later in the game, say turn
7 or 8, but if you live that long, you should be able to raid most of what
your opponent has left. Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress. Duress is more than playable
because it takes a potentially dangerous card out of your opponent's hand
for a single mana. Traum and Echoes do the same thing without letting the
cards get to your opponent's hand to begin with. I almost dropped Echoes
into my discard deck to help stop my opponent from playing real threats -
make them discard a bunch, and then Echoes them. (It didn't go in, simply
due to mana cost, but if I had designed my deck a little differently, I
probably could have found a home for it.)
Erich
Trepdil
Erich Leibrock wrote:
>
> Blue's best bet most of the time is racing your opponent's DECK - ie, not
> what's on the board. Knock off his library and he's got no resources left.
> Is there anything left in Type 2 that lets you skip your draw phase? All I
> can think of is Obstinate Familiar, which will help against this to a small
> degree (harder to make you lose for not being able to draw if you're not
> drawing anything)..
>
> Erich
>
>
There's still the Apocalypse enchantment Symbiotic Deployment; it
foorces your to skip the draw, and instead draw when you pay mana and
tap two untapped creatures you control.
Erich Leibrock
news:3C6A7A58...@hotmail.com...
That's true.. I forgot all about it. It's like a green version of
Necropotence, where you pay mana and tap creatures instead of paying life.
And mana and creatures isn't something green has a big problem producing!
Hey, why not.. I remember suggesting it to someone else as well. Funny how
many decent green card drawing cards there are :-)
Erich
Kaos
<elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I think Traumatize is more powerful than you think. Don't forget, you're not
>only eating up threat cards but mana sources as well. Think about it. You
>and I play a game, it's been five turns each, I've been countering a fair
>amount, and you went first. We've both played lands on most of our turns,
>and I'm playing Black/Blue, and have a Nightscape Familiar in play now. If I
>Traumatize you,
You've done nothing more than half the time left until I'm decked. My
actual threats are still the same, and the probabilities of my
threat-potential (ie what I will draw) are still the same.
>Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
>as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress.
Er... no.
Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
threat-probabilities of future draws.
--
"THE HAMSTERS! DEAR BOB IN HEAVEN,
MAKE ME STOP THINKING ABOUT THE HAMSTERS!"
- Will, "Fans"
Erich Leibrock
news:e1vm6ugnkkn7c1862...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:09:23 -0500, "Erich Leibrock"
> <elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >I think Traumatize is more powerful than you think. Don't forget, you're
not
> >only eating up threat cards but mana sources as well. Think about it. You
> >and I play a game, it's been five turns each, I've been countering a fair
> >amount, and you went first. We've both played lands on most of our turns,
> >and I'm playing Black/Blue, and have a Nightscape Familiar in play now.
If I
> >Traumatize you,
>
> You've done nothing more than half the time left until I'm decked. My
> actual threats are still the same, and the probabilities of my
> threat-potential (ie what I will draw) are still the same.
Not necessarily. I'd say chances are at least decent that any additional
copies you have of at least two spells are now sitting in the graveyard.
That can be very important, depending on our decks and what hits the GY. If
you're playing Trix, for example, and all remaining Donates are now in the
graveyard, that makes a small difference, doesn't it? Time to alter your
strategy.
> >Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
> >as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress.
>
> Er... no.
> Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
> Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
> threat-probabilities of future draws.
Traumatize reduces what you are able to draw. Sometimes this includes all
remaining copies of a given card. Echoes simply amplifies this based on
what's in the graveyard already.
Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree on our opinions of what these
cards do and what they're good for? It seems that neither of us are able to
convince the other that Traum and/or Echoes are or aren't good, as the case
may be. All I have left to say is: remember that Blue (Traum's color) is
partly based on library manipulation, and Black likes to mess with the
graveyard. At least based on these they make sense :-)
Erich
John Hwang
>"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote ...
>> "Erich Leibrock" <elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I think Traumatize is more powerful than you think.
>> You've done nothing more than half the time left until I'm decked. My
>> actual threats are still the same, and the probabilities of my
>> threat-potential (ie what I will draw) are still the same.
Only if all your potential threats are equal and the deck is uniform (not
random). E.g. Sligh or Stompy or White Weenie. If Combo/Control, Traumatize
getting through is a real danger.
>Not necessarily. I'd say chances are at least decent that any additional
>copies you have of at least two spells are now sitting in the graveyard.
>That can be very important, depending on our decks and what hits the GY.
>If you're playing Trix, for example, and all remaining Donates are now
>in the graveyard, that makes a small difference, doesn't it? Time to alter
>your strategy.
Heck, just seeing 2 Donates go away is a good result.
OTOH, seeing a Pandemonium and a Saproling Burst drop in would be really bad...
>> >Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
>> >as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress.
>>
>> Er... no.
>> Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
>> Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
>> threat-probabilities of future draws.
>
>Traumatize reduces what you are able to draw. Sometimes this includes all
>remaining copies of a given card.
Correct, because decks are *random*, not *uniform*.
>Echoes simply amplifies this based on
>what's in the graveyard already.
Actually, I look at Traumatize as amplifying the effect of Echoes... Echoes is
the real effect, as cards go out of game, and Traumatize causes more cards to
go out of game.
>Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree on our opinions of what these
>cards do and what they're good for? It seems that neither of us are able to
>convince the other that Traum and/or Echoes are or aren't good, as the case
>may be. All I have left to say is: remember that Blue (Traum's color) is
>partly based on library manipulation, and Black likes to mess with the
>graveyard. At least based on these they make sense :-)
Yup. The way I see it and play it, Traumatize/Echoes is a finishing combo, not
a winning combo.
Justin Sexton
> "Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:e1vm6ugnkkn7c1862...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:09:23 -0500, "Erich Leibrock"
> > <elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >I think Traumatize is more powerful than you think. Don't forget, you're
> not
> > >only eating up threat cards but mana sources as well. Think about it. You
> > >and I play a game, it's been five turns each, I've been countering a fair
> > >amount, and you went first. We've both played lands on most of our turns,
> > >and I'm playing Black/Blue, and have a Nightscape Familiar in play now.
> If I
> > >Traumatize you,
> >
> > You've done nothing more than half the time left until I'm decked. My
> > actual threats are still the same, and the probabilities of my
> > threat-potential (ie what I will draw) are still the same.
>
> Not necessarily. I'd say chances are at least decent that any additional
> copies you have of at least two spells are now sitting in the graveyard.
> That can be very important, depending on our decks and what hits the GY. If
> you're playing Trix, for example, and all remaining Donates are now in the
> graveyard, that makes a small difference, doesn't it? Time to alter your
> strategy.
It does, but not appreciable so. I'll explain in a second
> > >Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
> > >as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress.
> >
> > Er... no.
> > Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
> > Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
> > threat-probabilities of future draws.
>
> Traumatize reduces what you are able to draw. Sometimes this includes all
> remaining copies of a given card. Echoes simply amplifies this based on
> what's in the graveyard already.
>
> Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree on our opinions of what these
> cards do and what they're good for? It seems that neither of us are able to
> convince the other that Traum and/or Echoes are or aren't good, as the case
> may be. All I have left to say is: remember that Blue (Traum's color) is
> partly based on library manipulation, and Black likes to mess with the
> graveyard. At least based on these they make sense :-)
For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the decking aspect of
Traumatize. Why? The discussion centers around Traumatizes use as a
tool to reduce threats, not as a win condition.
Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
Cutter
3UU
Sorcery
Target player cuts his or her library.
Playable?
The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your deck. Each
position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of being any card.
Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting your deck,
and putting half your cards in the graveyard? None.
In one case, tutors can retrieve the cards on the bottom of the deck.
In the other case, graveyard recursion can retrieve them. Draw, as far
as I can see.
Traumatize, however gives your opponent knowledge of where the cards
are, something Cutter does not do. That actually gives Cutter an edge.
Further, Cutter does not give Threshold, nor does it give access to
Flashback cards, Ichorid, Nether Spirit, Squee, Ashen Ghoul,
Necrosavant, Hammer, etc.
Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a Donate is the
same as topdecking one for your opponent, by cutting straight to it.
If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't have drawn to_, had you not
played Traumatize or Cutter.
I can't put it any more plainly.
Justin
DSCreamer
>> you the game much more reliably than Traumatize+Haunting Echoes, it
>> cost less mana, and the two cards were more useful individually, but
>> decks built around this combo were Tier 2 at best.
Hibernation+Hermit Crab? There's no such card as Hermit Crab. Did you mean
Hermetic Study + Horseshoe Crab?
--
Ha ha ha, you are a funny fish!
PFTMIDTPTWFDTUAPWONTDTEOTALTEORTTSAJJTRBOATSOLSNOPTFMTR! -The Team Rocket
motto, abbreviated
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN\DOS\RUN
T. Swedish
news:20020214194323...@mb-mp.aol.com...
> >As an analogy, Hibernation+Hermit Crab would win
> >> you the game much more reliably than Traumatize+Haunting Echoes, it
> >> cost less mana, and the two cards were more useful individually, but
> >> decks built around this combo were Tier 2 at best.
>
> Hibernation+Hermit Crab? There's no such card as Hermit Crab. Did you mean
> Hermetic Study + Horseshoe Crab?
No, Hermit Crab!
Hermit Crab
1UU
2/3
Hermit Crab counts as a green creature.
Whenever Hermit Crab is returned to its owners hand, you win the game as
long as there are no green creatures in play.
T. Swedish
Kaos
<elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:e1vm6ugnkkn7c1862...@4ax.com...
>> You've done nothing more than half the time left until I'm decked. My
>> actual threats are still the same, and the probabilities of my
>> threat-potential (ie what I will draw) are still the same.
>
>Not necessarily. I'd say chances are at least decent that any additional
>copies you have of at least two spells are now sitting in the graveyard.
One of the very first discussions I saw on this newsgroup was about
Blind Milling; that is essentially what we're talking about here, just
on a greater scale.
Essentially, though, the probabilities are roughly the same: you have
as much chance of denying me access to a card as you do of putting me
closer to it. (Barring library manipulation, but then it stops being
'blind milling.')
>That can be very important, depending on our decks and what hits the GY. If
>you're playing Trix, for example, and all remaining Donates are now in the
>graveyard, that makes a small difference, doesn't it? Time to alter your
>strategy.
And if my remaining Donates are all in the bottom half of the deck,
you've just brought me that much closer to drawing into them.
It's a gamble; it's most likely that you'll get about half of them.
For a few decks (namely ones that rely on using specific cards
multiple times) it could make a difference; but IME such decks also
have at least marginal access to the graveyard as well. (I haven't
played much with Trix, though; it came about around the time I fell
out of touch.)
>> >Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
>> >as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress.
>>
>> Er... no.
>> Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
>> Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
>> threat-probabilities of future draws.
>
>Traumatize reduces what you are able to draw. Sometimes this includes all
>remaining copies of a given card.
And sometimes it includes excess material.
Remove your Traumatize and play against a 30 card deck using a
2-of-each limit, and it'll be essentially the same thing.
>Echoes simply amplifies this based on
>what's in the graveyard already.
Echoes rips spells out of the deck, leaving lands; thus greatly
increasing one's odds of topdecking lands.
Traumatize blind-mills half of a deck in one shot. If milling is your
goal, that's good; otherwise, it's gambling.
>Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree on our opinions of what these
>cards do and what they're good for?
Feh. It's an old topic, so it's something I can actually talk about
while trying to figure out the new cards. If I simply 'agree to
disagree,' I lose one of very few strategy-discussions available for
watering down my NetKop discussions :p
>It seems that neither of us are able to
>convince the other that Traum and/or Echoes are or aren't good, as the case
>may be. All I have left to say is: remember that Blue (Traum's color) is
>partly based on library manipulation, and Black likes to mess with the
>graveyard. At least based on these they make sense :-)
Pfft. I never said that Echoes wasn't good. Nor did I say Traumatize
was crap. And I definately won't deny that the two have great
synergy. Merely saying that Traumatize doesn't do what you think it
does.
Kaos
Sexton) wrote:
>Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
>Cutter
>3UU
>Sorcery
>Target player cuts his or her library.
>
>Playable?
>
>The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your deck. Each
>position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of being any card.
>Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting your deck,
>and putting half your cards in the graveyard? None.
>
>In one case, tutors can retrieve the cards on the bottom of the deck.
>In the other case, graveyard recursion can retrieve them. Draw, as far
>as I can see.
>
>Traumatize, however gives your opponent knowledge of where the cards
>are, something Cutter does not do. That actually gives Cutter an edge.
OTOH, Cutter doesn't give *you* that knowledge either - Which
Traumatize would. I'd call that a Draw as well (if Traumatize had a
chance of showing up early, I'd give it the edge actually - it would
also clue you in to what your opponent was playing. Course, by the
time Traumatize does show up you *should* know already.)
>Further, Cutter does not give Threshold, nor does it give access to
>Flashback cards, Ichorid, Nether Spirit, Squee, Ashen Ghoul,
>Necrosavant, Hammer, etc.
This, OTOH, gives Cutter an edge (once the 'win condition' aspect has
been ruled out.)
John Hwang
>For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the decking
>aspect of Traumatize. Why? The discussion centers around
>Traumatizes use as a tool to reduce threats, not as a win
>condition.
Isn't that like ignoring at the beating aspect of Spiritmonger?
>Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
>Cutter
>3UU
>Sorcery
>Target player cuts his or her library.
>
>Playable?
Absolutely not. Cutter is a crap card, strictly inferior to Portent, which
costs less, replaces itself, allows you to look at the top 3 cards of the
library, and gives you the option of shuffling or reordering those cards.
>The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your
>deck. Each position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of
>being any card.
However, even assuming that the this is played turn 1, before the opponent
plays anything, they've still drawn 7 cards. So the chances of individual
cards are modified by the fact that some are in the hand.
>Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting
>your deck, and putting half your cards in the graveyard?
>None.
Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as it is
entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top (or
bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience "mana
screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana), even though the mana
sources are randomly distributed throughout the deck.
It seems that you, like several others, are confusing RANDOMNESS with
UNIFORMITY. They're totally different, and explain why Traumatize is a
playable card and Cutter is not. Randomness says that sometimes things are not
uniformly distributed (and in fact, should *not* be uniform in individual games
but *must* be uniform over an arbitrarily large number of games). This is why
"mana leaving" (to achieve uniform mana distribution) is a form of deck
manipulation.
>In one case, tutors can retrieve the cards on the bottom of
>the deck. In the other case, graveyard recursion can
>retrieve them. Draw, as far as I can see.
For 0cc, Tormod's Crypt says they're very different.
For a tutor-based deck, having half of the deck in the graveyard is bad, simply
because there are fewer tutors and things to tutor for.
For a graveyard deck, having all of the recursion parts in the graveyard is
equally bad.
Cutter has no value, as it changes the library not at all.
Traumatize has significant value as it changes the contents of both library
*and* graveyard in a major way.
>Traumatize, however gives your opponent knowledge of
>where the cards are, something Cutter does not do. That
>actually gives Cutter an edge. Further, Cutter does not
>give Threshold, nor does it give access to Flashback cards,
>Ichorid, Nether Spirit, Squee, Ashen Ghoul,
>Necrosavant, Hammer, etc.
Cutter's still crap. The only reason to play a "cutter" card is because you
know or believe that your deck benefits from re-randomization.
Example: you've been using Abundance (replace draw by placing the next
land/non-land in your hand, while placing non-land/land on the bottom of your
library), and have a big stack of land, followed by a big stack of non-land.
In this case, it may be desirable to reshuffle to obtain a more uniform
distribution of land and non-land.
>Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
>Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
>cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
>have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can see whether any
Donates were in the top half of the library. So that is useful.
While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the Traumatize
*forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by placing
cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something non-uniform
will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates), so that's pretty
handy.
Erich Leibrock
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:46:13 -0500, "Erich Leibrock"
> <elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >news:e1vm6ugnkkn7c1862...@4ax.com...
> >> You've done nothing more than half the time left until I'm decked. My
> >> actual threats are still the same, and the probabilities of my
> >> threat-potential (ie what I will draw) are still the same.
> >
> >Not necessarily. I'd say chances are at least decent that any additional
> >copies you have of at least two spells are now sitting in the graveyard.
>
> One of the very first discussions I saw on this newsgroup was about
> Blind Milling; that is essentially what we're talking about here, just
> on a greater scale.
>
> Essentially, though, the probabilities are roughly the same: you have
> as much chance of denying me access to a card as you do of putting me
> closer to it. (Barring library manipulation, but then it stops being
> 'blind milling.')
But probability is based on, as I believe someone here put it, uniformity to
some degree. What I'm understanding from what you are saying is this:
Take a typical Trix deck. Assume 4 each of Donate and Illusions of Grandeur
(the two main parts of the deck, ie the combo).
Uniformity would indicate that, in any batch of 15 consecutive card slots,
before drawing, there should be one Donate and one Illusions.
But we're not talking uniformity here; we're talking randomness. So, yes
there's a chance that the IoG's and Donates are spread that way, but there's
also a chance that the IoG's or Donates are clumped together. And in almost
every game, someone has two copies of one card that are sitting right beside
each other (for example, either you or I have two copies of Shock or Mox
Diamond or Dark Ritual or Juzam Djinn or even Plains one right after the
other). So I "mill" you for the top half of your library. You have half the
remaining time left before you get decked (which MAY be the way to win with
my deck), your graveyard just got flooded with new arrivals, and if I look
at your graveyard, not only do I have a good idea what you're playing, but
chances are good I'll see three or four copies of at least ONE card in the
graveyard, meaning I no longer have to concern myself with that threat
(unless it's a 3 and there's a fourth left in your hand or deck).
> >That can be very important, depending on our decks and what hits the GY.
If
> >you're playing Trix, for example, and all remaining Donates are now in
the
> >graveyard, that makes a small difference, doesn't it? Time to alter your
> >strategy.
>
> And if my remaining Donates are all in the bottom half of the deck,
> you've just brought me that much closer to drawing into them.
>
> It's a gamble; it's most likely that you'll get about half of them.
> For a few decks (namely ones that rely on using specific cards
> multiple times) it could make a difference; but IME such decks also
> have at least marginal access to the graveyard as well. (I haven't
> played much with Trix, though; it came about around the time I fell
> out of touch.)
True. But in that case, it's a good chance that there's less Illusions in
your deck.
> >> >Think of Traumatize and Haunting Echoes (separately)
> >> >as pre-emptive counterspells, like Duress.
> >>
> >> Er... no.
> >> Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
> >> Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
> >> threat-probabilities of future draws.
> >
> >Traumatize reduces what you are able to draw. Sometimes this includes all
> >remaining copies of a given card.
>
> And sometimes it includes excess material.
>
> Remove your Traumatize and play against a 30 card deck using a
> 2-of-each limit, and it'll be essentially the same thing.
Except 30 card limits aren't legal in tournaments :-)
But seriously.. I understand what you're saying; I strongly disagree with
your perspective, but that's my choice, as it's your choice to disagree with
mine.
I could see a Reanimator deck, with a good reanimation setup already in
play, Trauming itself to get more creatures in the grave so it would have
more animation options.. and Threshold more than established.
> >Echoes simply amplifies this based on
> >what's in the graveyard already.
>
> Echoes rips spells out of the deck, leaving lands; thus greatly
> increasing one's odds of topdecking lands.
>
> Traumatize blind-mills half of a deck in one shot. If milling is your
> goal, that's good; otherwise, it's gambling.
Which is why people are trying to design useable Traum/Echoes decks. Combine
the two together and chances are good your opponent will have nothing left
but land in the graveyard and a b!+c# of a time drawing anything but land
from the library.
> >Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree on our opinions of what these
> >cards do and what they're good for?
>
> Feh. It's an old topic, so it's something I can actually talk about
> while trying to figure out the new cards. If I simply 'agree to
> disagree,' I lose one of very few strategy-discussions available for
> watering down my NetKop discussions :p
LOL.. I've given up on THOSE conversations. Why do you think I've been
replying to older posts lately? And entering the occasional new one? THOSE
discussions have become boring and full of disrespect, and aren't even
related to what the newsgroup(s) are about, really (ie, rules questions on
.rules or strategy questions here).
> >It seems that neither of us are able to
> >convince the other that Traum and/or Echoes are or aren't good, as the
case
> >may be. All I have left to say is: remember that Blue (Traum's color) is
> >partly based on library manipulation, and Black likes to mess with the
> >graveyard. At least based on these they make sense :-)
>
> Pfft. I never said that Echoes wasn't good. Nor did I say Traumatize
> was crap. And I definately won't deny that the two have great
> synergy. Merely saying that Traumatize doesn't do what you think it
> does.
That depends on what you think I think it does .. I'm not even sure *I* know
the answer to that one! *LOL*
Erich
Justin Sexton
> On 14 Feb 2002 16:35:52 -0800, jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin
> Sexton) wrote:
>
> >Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
> >Cutter
> >3UU
> >Sorcery
> >Target player cuts his or her library.
> >
> >Playable?
> >
> >The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your deck. Each
> >position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of being any card.
> >Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting your deck,
> >and putting half your cards in the graveyard? None.
> >
> >In one case, tutors can retrieve the cards on the bottom of the deck.
> >In the other case, graveyard recursion can retrieve them. Draw, as far
> >as I can see.
> >
> >Traumatize, however gives your opponent knowledge of where the cards
> >are, something Cutter does not do. That actually gives Cutter an edge.
>
> OTOH, Cutter doesn't give *you* that knowledge either - Which
> Traumatize would. I'd call that a Draw as well (if Traumatize had a
> chance of showing up early, I'd give it the edge actually - it would
> also clue you in to what your opponent was playing. Course, by the
> time Traumatize does show up you *should* know already.)
Okay, I'll concede that point. Still, that the crappy Cutter draws
with Traumatize so much shoudl eb an indication.
> >Further, Cutter does not give Threshold, nor does it give access to
> >Flashback cards, Ichorid, Nether Spirit, Squee, Ashen Ghoul,
> >Necrosavant, Hammer, etc.
>
> This, OTOH, gives Cutter an edge (once the 'win condition' aspect has
> been ruled out.)
Exactly.
Justin
Justin Sexton
> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>
> >For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the decking
> >aspect of Traumatize. Why? The discussion centers around
> >Traumatizes use as a tool to reduce threats, not as a win
> >condition.
>
> Isn't that like ignoring at the beating aspect of Spiritmonger?
Not really. If the discussion is about how to beat someone by milling,
then we should be comparing it to Whetstone, Millstone, Laquatus, etc.
The discussion is focussing on a separate aspect.
> >Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
> >Cutter
> >3UU
> >Sorcery
> >Target player cuts his or her library.
> >
> >Playable?
>
> Absolutely not. Cutter is a crap card, strictly inferior to Portent, which
> costs less, replaces itself, allows you to look at the top 3 cards of the
> library, and gives you the option of shuffling or reordering those cards.
Agree. My point is to demonstrate that Cutter is not very different
from Traumatize.
> >The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your
> >deck. Each position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of
> >being any card.
>
> However, even assuming that the this is played turn 1, before the opponent
> plays anything, they've still drawn 7 cards. So the chances of individual
> cards are modified by the fact that some are in the hand.
Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
library.
> >Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting
> >your deck, and putting half your cards in the graveyard?
> >None.
>
> Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as it is
> entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top (or
> bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience "mana
> screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana), even though the > mana
> sources are randomly distributed throughout the deck.
I have experience with probs and stats, okay? Both Cutter and
Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from the center of your
deck rather than the top. Barring library manipulation, neither affect
the chances of drawing a particular card.
> It seems that you, like several others, are confusing RANDOMNESS with
> UNIFORMITY. They're totally different, and explain why Traumatize is a
> playable card and Cutter is not. Randomness says that sometimes things are not
> uniformly distributed (and in fact, should *not* be uniform in individual games
> but *must* be uniform over an arbitrarily large number of games). This is why
> "mana leaving" (to achieve uniform mana distribution) is a form of deck
> manipulation.
I'm aware of all that. Neither affect what cards are drawn in any way.
> >In one case, tutors can retrieve the cards on the bottom of
> >the deck. In the other case, graveyard recursion can
> >retrieve them. Draw, as far as I can see.
>
> For 0cc, Tormod's Crypt says they're very different.
>
> For a tutor-based deck, having half of the deck in the graveyard is bad, simply
> because there are fewer tutors and things to tutor for.
>
> For a graveyard deck, having all of the recursion parts in the graveyard is
> equally bad.
>
> Cutter has no value, as it changes the library not at all.
>
> Traumatize has significant value as it changes the contents of both library
> *and* graveyard in a major way.
>
> >Traumatize, however gives your opponent knowledge of
> >where the cards are, something Cutter does not do. That
> >actually gives Cutter an edge. Further, Cutter does not
> >give Threshold, nor does it give access to Flashback cards,
> >Ichorid, Nether Spirit, Squee, Ashen Ghoul,
> >Necrosavant, Hammer, etc.
>
> Cutter's still crap. The only reason to play a "cutter" card is because you
> know or believe that your deck benefits from re-randomization.
I acknowledge that Cutter is unplayable.
> Example: you've been using Abundance (replace draw by placing the next
> land/non-land in your hand, while placing non-land/land on the bottom of your
> library), and have a big stack of land, followed by a big stack of non-land.
> In this case, it may be desirable to reshuffle to obtain a more uniform
> distribution of land and non-land.
>
> >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
>
> However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can see whether any
> Donates were in the top half of the library. So that is useful.
So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
> While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the Traumatize
> *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by placing
> cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something non-uniform
> will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates), so that's pretty
> handy.
>
Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
tutors can get them.
Playing Traumatize moves them all to the graveyard, where recursion
can get them.
Draw
2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
Draw
3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
the library.
Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
the _possibility_ of a win?
Justin
Kaos
Sexton) wrote:
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote in message news:<20020215010959...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>...
>> Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as it is
>> entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top (or
>> bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience "mana
>> screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana), even though the > mana
>> sources are randomly distributed throughout the deck.
Precisely. If they're all on the top, either will screw you. If
they're all on the bottom, either will help you.
Unless you *know* where they are, or have an easier access to one of
the two areas (the bottom of your deck or your graveyard,) then
neither will provide a *consistent* advantage.
>> Cutter has no value, as it changes the library not at all.
>>
>> Traumatize has significant value as it changes the contents of both library
>> *and* graveyard in a major way.
But with no guarantee as to who will be most advantaged by that -
barring combos such as Tormod's Crypt or Haunting Echos.
If you dump half my deck into my graveyard, and *miss* my recursion
entirely (which you have just as much a chance of doing as getting all
of it) then you've pretty much just given me the game. If you only
get half of it, which is what you will do most often, I'm still at a
minor advantage - I have the same odds of drawing into my recursion as
before, but have far more stuff to recurse.
If I'm not using recursion at all, then either one of us gets lucky
(you either dump out my 'dry spell' or dump out most of my threats -
equal odds of either) or you've pulled off a Cutter and done nothing
meaningful (except cut down the time till I'm decked by half, which is
also meaningless if you're not going to folow up on it.)
>> While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the Traumatize
>> *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by placing
>> cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something non-uniform
>> will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates), so that's pretty
>> handy.
Aye; but that can work to *either* player's advantage.
Get less than half of them, and he's got better odds of drawing into
the remaining ones; get more than half, and he's got worse.
Statistically, without library manipulation, the chances for either of
those possibilities are identical.
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote...
>> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>>
>> >For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the decking
>> >aspect of Traumatize. Why? The discussion centers around
>> >Traumatizes use as a tool to reduce threats, not as a win
>> >condition.
>>
>> Isn't that like ignoring at the beating aspect of Spiritmonger?
>
>Not really. If the discussion is about how to beat someone by milling,
>then we should be comparing it to Whetstone, Millstone, Laquatus, etc.
Compared with, card for card, Traumatize is far more efficient than any of
these.
>The discussion is focussing on a separate aspect.
Um, OK. "Threat reduction".
>> >Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
>> >Cutter
>> >3UU
>> >Sorcery
>> >Target player cuts his or her library.
>> >
>> >Playable?
>>
>> Absolutely not. Cutter is a crap card, strictly inferior to Portent,
>> which costs less, replaces itself, allows you to look at the top 3
>> cards of the library, and gives you the option of shuffling or
>> reordering those cards.
>
>Agree. My point is to demonstrate that Cutter is not very different
>from Traumatize.
I see them as very different from a "threat reduction" standpoint. On average,
Traumatize cuts the number of threats remaining in library in half, while
leaving the number of threats and answers in my library unchanged. Assuming
that the game can be transormed into a situation of neutral card advantage,
Traumatize is a game winner.
>> >The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your
>> >deck. Each position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of
>> >being any card.
>>
>> However, even assuming that the this is played turn 1, before the opponent
>> plays anything, they've still drawn 7 cards. So the chances of individual
>> cards are modified by the fact that some are in the hand.
>
>Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
>whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
>library.
It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
>> >Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting
>> >your deck, and putting half your cards in the graveyard?
>> >None.
>>
>> Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as it
>> is entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top
>> (or bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience
>> "mana screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana),
>> even though the mana sources are randomly distributed throughout
>> the deck.
>
>I have experience with probs and stats, okay?
OK. This wasn't at all apparaent in the previous discussion.
>Both Cutter and Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from
>the center of your deck rather than the top. Barring library
>manipulation, neither affect the chances of drawing a particular
>card.
Agreed. Right up to the point at which one draws to the equivalent of the
middle of the original library, because then one has no library to draw
against. Unlike, say, Star Wars, we don't continuously reshuffle graveyard
back into library, but rather, we recognize a "decking" win condition.
>> It seems that you, like several others, are confusing RANDOMNESS with
>> UNIFORMITY.
>I'm aware of all that. Neither affect what cards are drawn in any way.
OK.
[SNIP]
>I acknowledge that Cutter is unplayable.
OK.
>> >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
>> >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
>> >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
>> >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
>>
>> However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can
>> see whether any Donates were in the top half of the library. So
>> that is useful.
>
>So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
However, most opponent's decks aren't prepared to take advantage of the
graveyard as a resource, especially not having such a . Just like Howling
Mine, or Anvil of Bogardan. They only appear in decks which take advantage of
them.
>> While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the Traumatize
>> *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by placing
>> cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something
>> non-uniform will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates),
>> so that's pretty handy.
>>
>
>Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
>
>1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
>
>Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
>tutors can get them. Playing Traumatize moves them all to the
>graveyard, where recursion can get them.
>
>Draw
Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an automatic
loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so that the match is no
worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo deck, Trix/Trick can win in the
short time remaining to go 2-1.
>2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
>
>Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
>Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
>
>Draw
Agree.
>3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
>
>Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
>Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
>the library.
>
>Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
No. Traumatize is better. Donate doesn't recur, many of it's tutors may have
been lost to the graveyard.
>Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
>where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
>
>In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
>the _possibility_ of a win?
As I've said before, Traumatize is an amplifier for things like Echoes, Crypt,
etc. It's a conditional card which is eminently playable in such decks which
depend on asymmetric graveyard/library conditions. Cutter is not playable at
all.
John Hwang
>>> Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as it
>>> >is entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the
>>> top (or bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally
>>> experience "mana screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too
>>> much mana), even though the mana sources are randomly distributed
>>> throughout the deck.
>
>Precisely. If they're all on the top, either will screw you. If
>they're all on the bottom, either will help you.
>
>Unless you *know* where they are, or have an easier access to one of
>the two areas (the bottom of your deck or your graveyard,) then
>neither will provide a *consistent* advantage.
Yup.
>>> Cutter has no value, as it changes the library not at all.
>>>
>>> Traumatize has significant value as it changes the contents of both
>>> library *and* graveyard in a major way.
>
>But with no guarantee as to who will be most advantaged by that -
>barring combos such as Tormod's Crypt or Haunting Echos.
I dunno. Traumatize combos well with Replenish and Living Death, also. :)
The point is that Traumatize is like a Howling Mine -- you don't play it unless
you expect to take advantage of it.
>If you dump half my deck into my graveyard, and *miss* my recursion
>entirely (which you have just as much a chance of doing as getting all
>of it) then you've pretty much just given me the game. If you only
>get half of it, which is what you will do most often, I'm still at a
>minor advantage - I have the same odds of drawing into my recursion as
>before, but have far more stuff to recurse.
Yup. However, one assumes a non-scrub has a reason for casting Traumatize, and
an answer for what might occur.
>If I'm not using recursion at all, then either one of us gets lucky
>(you either dump out my 'dry spell' or dump out most of my threats -
>equal odds of either) or you've pulled off a Cutter and done nothing
>meaningful (except cut down the time till I'm decked by half, which is
>also meaningless if you're not going to folow up on it.)
Agree. But as I see Traumatize strictly as a support card, I would always
assume the deck has some sort of follow-up.
>>> While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the Traumatize
>>> *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by placing
>>> cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something
>>> non-uniform will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates),
>>> so that's pretty handy.
>
>Aye; but that can work to *either* player's advantage.
>Get less than half of them, and he's got better odds of drawing into
>the remaining ones; get more than half, and he's got worse.
>Statistically, without library manipulation, the chances for either of
>those possibilities are identical.
Yes. But practically, on a per game basis, it can make a huge difference, and
usually the advantage will go to the player casting Traumatize. Otherwise,
they just wouldn't cast it.
The thing with Traumtaize is that you've got a *lot* of statistical things
which are immediately resolved. Worst case, for a controllish player,
suddenly, they gain very important information about the structure and contents
of their opponent's deck, and better choose which threats to respond to,
allowing them to play more efficiently.
T. Swedish
> >from Traumatize.
>
> I see them as very different from a "threat reduction" standpoint. On
average,
> Traumatize cuts the number of threats remaining in library in half, while
> leaving the number of threats and answers in my library unchanged.
Assuming
> that the game can be transormed into a situation of neutral card
advantage,
> Traumatize is a game winner.
Only if you both draw your whole libraries during the course of the game.
Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything.
T. Swedish
Justin Sexton
> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote...
> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
> >>
> >> >For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the decking
> >> >aspect of Traumatize. Why? The discussion centers around
> >> >Traumatizes use as a tool to reduce threats, not as a win
> >> >condition.
> >>
> >> Isn't that like ignoring at the beating aspect of Spiritmonger?
> >
> >Not really. If the discussion is about how to beat someone by milling,
> >then we should be comparing it to Whetstone, Millstone, Laquatus, etc.
>
> Compared with, card for card, Traumatize is far more efficient than any of
> these.
In terms of total cards milled, yes. In terms of killing via milling,
no. Why? I'ts difficult to deal the final blow with Traumatize, since
it gets less efficient as the game progresses. Laquatus, on the other
hand, gets better, as you have more mana to sink.
> >> >Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
> >> >Cutter
> >> >3UU
> >> >Sorcery
> >> >Target player cuts his or her library.
> >> >
> >> >Playable?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not. Cutter is a crap card, strictly inferior to Portent,
> >> which costs less, replaces itself, allows you to look at the top 3
> >> cards of the library, and gives you the option of shuffling or
> >> reordering those cards.
> >
> >Agree. My point is to demonstrate that Cutter is not very different
> >from Traumatize.
>
> I see them as very different from a "threat reduction" standpoint. On average,
> Traumatize cuts the number of threats remaining in library in half, while
> leaving the number of threats and answers in my library unchanged. Assuming
> that the game can be transormed into a situation of neutral card advantage,
> Traumatize is a game winner.
But assuming that most games end within fifteen or so turns, the
bottom half of the library doesn't enter the equation much, if at all.
We've been talking about fighting Trix, but let's look at other
matchups, like Sligh or Stompy. Traumatize alone does nothing against
them. Versus Draino or Reanimator, it helps them along considerably.
Versus Oath with Blessing, you've likely wasted a card completely. See
where I'm going? If the best case for Traumatize is made about a
control/combo deck like Trix, then that's pretty bad, since five-mana
sorceries would tend to get countered a lot.
> >> >The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your
> >> >deck. Each position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of
> >> >being any card.
> >>
> >> However, even assuming that the this is played turn 1, before the opponent
> >> plays anything, they've still drawn 7 cards. So the chances of individual
> >> cards are modified by the fact that some are in the hand.
> >
> >Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
> >whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
> >library.
>
> It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
??? I was talking about altering odds of where cards are in the
library. How does a Counterspell change that?
> >> >Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting
> >> >your deck, and putting half your cards in the graveyard?
> >> >None.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as it
> >> is entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top
> >> (or bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience
> >> "mana screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana),
> >> even though the mana sources are randomly distributed throughout
> >> the deck.
> >
> >I have experience with probs and stats, okay?
>
> OK. This wasn't at all apparaent in the previous discussion.
I was trying to keep it simple for all involved, myself included. :)
> >Both Cutter and Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from
> >the center of your deck rather than the top. Barring library
> >manipulation, neither affect the chances of drawing a particular
> >card.
>
> Agreed. Right up to the point at which one draws to the equivalent of the
> middle of the original library, because then one has no library to draw
> against.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
> Unlike, say, Star Wars, we don't continuously reshuffle graveyard
> back into library, but rather, we recognize a "decking" win condition.
True, and I acknowledge that Traumatize has the potential to help kill
via decking. Notice, though, that it will never do the job by itself,
since you can only get half the cards left, rounded down.
> >> >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> >> >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> >> >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> >> >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
> >>
> >> However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can
> >> see whether any Donates were in the top half of the library. So
> >> that is useful.
> >
> >So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
>
> However, most opponent's decks aren't prepared to take advantage of the
> graveyard as a resource, especially not having such a . Just like Howling
> Mine, or Anvil of Bogardan. They only appear in decks which take advantage of
> them.
That is changing rapidly. Call of the Herd, Ichorid, anything with
flashback, Squee, Hammer, Necrosavant, any deck sporting Nostalgic
Dreams, Restock, Zombify, Life/Death, and a jillion other cards all
would love to be hit with Traumatize. To them, Traumatize reads "Draw
twenty or so cards and get Threshold."
> >> While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the Traumatize
> >> *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by placing
> >> cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something
> >> non-uniform will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates),
> >> so that's pretty handy.
> >>
> >Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
> >
> >1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
> >
> >Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
> >tutors can get them. Playing Traumatize moves them all to the
> >graveyard, where recursion can get them.
> >
> >Draw
>
> Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an automatic
> loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so that the match is no
> worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo deck, Trix/Trick can win in the
> short time remaining to go 2-1.
Perhaps. Of course, the sided-in Morphling can still get dropped for
the win. This also assumes that a five-mana sorcery can resolve
against a counter-heavy deck.
> >2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
> >
> >Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
> >Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
> >
> >Draw
>
> Agree.
>
> >3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
> >
> >Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
> >Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
> >the library.
> >
> >Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
>
> No. Traumatize is better. Donate doesn't recur, many of it's tutors may
> have been lost to the graveyard.
Disagree. What, are we assuming that the top half of the library
contained nothing but kill cards and tutors? It's just as likely that
the bottom did, and we just broke through their land glut and lost an
otherwise auto-win. If the cards were more or less evenly mixed, then
all we did was move them around to a new, random location.
> >Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
> >where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
> >
> >In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
> >the _possibility_ of a win?
>
> As I've said before, Traumatize is an amplifier for things like Echoes, Crypt,
> etc. It's a conditional card which is eminently playable in such decks which
> depend on asymmetric graveyard/library conditions. Cutter is not playable at
> all.
Oh sure, Traumatize has some great combos, like Echoes. The start of
this discussion, however, was whether it was worth playing two
double-colored, five mana sorceries that _by themselves_ didn't
accomplish much. That started the current thread that you and I are on
opposite sides of.
Slightly OT: My God, it's great to actually debate a Magic issue with
someone honest and intelligent, instead of witnessing a pointlessly
expanding flamewar. John, it's been a pleasure so far. I mean that
sincerely.
Justin
Kaos
wrote:
>Kaos ka...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>But with no guarantee as to who will be most advantaged by that -
>>barring combos such as Tormod's Crypt or Haunting Echos.
>
>I dunno. Traumatize combos well with Replenish and Living Death, also. :)
>
>The point is that Traumatize is like a Howling Mine -- you don't play it unless
>you expect to take advantage of it.
Absolutely. But to figure out if you can reasonably expect to take
advantage of it, it's really a good idea to know what it doesn't do
(which is deny your opponent access to threats in a meaningful and
consistent manner.)
>Yup. However, one assumes a non-scrub has a reason for casting Traumatize, and
>an answer for what might occur.
Yeah, but sometimes you do actually see scrubby moves made by guys who
are almost-but-not-quite pros. I've made a few of them myself.
>>meaningful (except cut down the time till I'm decked by half, which is
>>also meaningless if you're not going to folow up on it.)
>
>Agree. But as I see Traumatize strictly as a support card, I would always
>assume the deck has some sort of follow-up.
Well, then we're out of discussing it as a blind-mill card and back to
discussing it as a win-condition ;)
>The thing with Traumtaize is that you've got a *lot* of statistical things
>which are immediately resolved. Worst case, for a controllish player,
>suddenly, they gain very important information about the structure and contents
>of their opponent's deck, and better choose which threats to respond to,
>allowing them to play more efficiently.
Eh. A good control player can do that with Peek; and peek at least
cantrips.
Kaos
Sexton) wrote:
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote in message news:<20020217140550...@mb-fa.news.cs.com>...
>> Compared with, card for card, Traumatize is far more efficient than any of
>> these.
>
>In terms of total cards milled, yes. In terms of killing via milling,
>no. Why? I'ts difficult to deal the final blow with Traumatize, since
>it gets less efficient as the game progresses. Laquatus, on the other
>hand, gets better, as you have more mana to sink.
Eh. The one thing about milling (as opposed to damage) is that you
often don't have to deal the final blow - the game mechanics will deal
it for you, albeit more slowly. One Traumatize means I don't have to
beat you anymore - you have to beat me. All I have to do is hold you
off (which, of course, is easier said that done; but that's the fun of
this game.)
But again - that is *all* Traumatizing an opponent does.
>Versus Oath with Blessing, you've likely wasted a card completely.
Heh. Blessing is just about the only card I truly miss from that
series. While it was legal in standard, I don't think I had a single
deck that *didn't* splash green just for the Blessing...
And now there's Dwell on the Past, but it's just not the same.
>> Unlike, say, Star Wars, we don't continuously reshuffle graveyard
>> back into library, but rather, we recognize a "decking" win condition.
>
>True, and I acknowledge that Traumatize has the potential to help kill
>via decking. Notice, though, that it will never do the job by itself,
>since you can only get half the cards left, rounded down.
You can actually deck a guy with just 2 Gaea's Blessing, and it
doesn't mill *any* cards. It just takes time - time you don't have in
Tournament play, typically; even if you can hold him off long enough,
the timer's going to run out on you.
HCCommander
> Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
> Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
> threat-probabilities of future draws.
>
So no milling. New idea: Duress, Addle, Haunting Echoes. Example: Duress
for Fact or Fiction, Addle (blue) for Psychatog, some more cards, Haunting
Echoes. You completely destroy the deck strategy. Should be an easy win now.
--
Commander
<commander AT holycows.de>
If you want to mail me, please don't use the bcc tag.
I'm working on a new spam filter. :-)
Erich Leibrock
Yes and no. Peek gives you a look at your opponent's hand, and gives you a
good indication of what kind of deck your opponent is playing - land
destuction, discard, permission, creatures, combo, whatever. Traumatize
tells you much more about the actual CONSTUCTION of the deck. For instance,
you Peek and see this in a seven-card hand:
3x Island
1x Illusions of Grandeur
2x Counterspell
1x Fact or Fiction
This gives you a good indication your opponent is playing Trix (the IoG is
almost a giveaway). However, you Traumatize and see not only IoG's,
Counters, and draw cards, but a couple of Dark Rituals and Necropotence his
the graveyard, and even a Firestorm! AHA! Now you have an idea how his deck
is actually built, you have a better idea what other weak points are in the
deck. Playing three colors means your opponent has little or nothing in the
way of basic lands, so having a way to attack the mana base is also a good
option. Peek can tell you your opponent is playing Rebel, or Permission;
Traumatize will tell you if it's Rebel, Counter-Rebel, Permission with a
handfull of useful Rebels, and how aggressive the deck is. Knowing deck type
is good; knowing deck DESIGN gives potentially vital information.
Erich
Erich Leibrock
news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
> johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote in message
news:<20020215010959...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>...
> > jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
> >
> > >Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
> > >Cutter
> > >3UU
> > >Sorcery
> > >Target player cuts his or her library.
> > >
> > >Playable?
> >
> > Absolutely not. Cutter is a crap card, strictly inferior to Portent,
which
> > costs less, replaces itself, allows you to look at the top 3 cards of
the
> > library, and gives you the option of shuffling or reordering those
cards.
>
> Agree. My point is to demonstrate that Cutter is not very different
> from Traumatize.
It's different enough, for reasons I will state momentarily.
> > >The rules say to randomly distribute cards through your
> > >deck. Each position from 1 to 60 has an equal chance of
> > >being any card.
> >
> > However, even assuming that the this is played turn 1, before the
opponent
> > plays anything, they've still drawn 7 cards. So the chances of
individual
> > cards are modified by the fact that some are in the hand.
>
> Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
> whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
> library.
But having ACCESS to those other three Donates makes a big strategical
difference. Trix tends to be primarily blue with a splash of black primarily
for card searching. Before appropriate bans were made, it had I believe
Necropotence, Demonic Consultations, and Vampiric Tutor, as well as Dark
Ritual to help get Necro out that much sooner. Cutting the deck would still
leave those three Donates in the deck, making them easy to search for one
way or another. Also, a good amount of the blue focussed around card drawing
ability, thus giving you another way to reach your card sooner. Putting
those cards into the graveyard limits how successfully you can produce the
appropriate threats, especially since I don't think I've seen a copy of Trix
that has ANY cards that give it access to the graveyard.
> > >Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting
> > >your deck, and putting half your cards in the graveyard?
> > >None.
> >
> > Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as
it is
> > entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top
(or
> > bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience
"mana
> > screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana), even though
the > mana
> > sources are randomly distributed throughout the deck.
>
> I have experience with probs and stats, okay? Both Cutter and
> Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from the center of your
> deck rather than the top. Barring library manipulation, neither affect
> the chances of drawing a particular card.
However, a large number of decks HAVE SOME kind of library manipulation that
they use. Anything from Fact or Fiction and Opt to Vampiric Tutor to Oaths
to Skyship Weatherlight to Eladamri's Call.. the list goes on. Ignoring this
aspect of Traumatize is, in my opinion, a bad idea. (However, I will agree
that, if library manipulation was being ignored, neither would be much
better than the other, though I'd still favour Traumatize as it gave easier
access to a second win condition. Otherwise, yes I agree.)
> > It seems that you, like several others, are confusing RANDOMNESS with
> > UNIFORMITY. They're totally different, and explain why Traumatize is a
> > playable card and Cutter is not. Randomness says that sometimes things
are not
> > uniformly distributed (and in fact, should *not* be uniform in
individual games
> > but *must* be uniform over an arbitrarily large number of games). This
is why
> > "mana leaving" (to achieve uniform mana distribution) is a form of deck
> > manipulation.
>
> I'm aware of all that. Neither affect what cards are drawn in any way.
It's not a question of what can be DRAWN. It's a question of "What can I get
my hands on?" And library manipulation is a key part of many decks,
including and especially Trix.
> > >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> > >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> > >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> > >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
> >
> > However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can see whether
any
> > Donates were in the top half of the library. So that is useful.
>
> So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
Yes, but likely also more psychologically painful, because if it resolves,
they know they have access to a lot less threats than before.
> > While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the
Traumatize
> > *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by
placing
> > cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something
non-uniform
> > will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates), so that's
pretty
> > handy.
>
> Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
>
> 1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
>
> Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
> tutors can get them.
> Playing Traumatize moves them all to the graveyard, where recursion
> can get them.
>
> Draw
I disagree. Most search-based cards can access cards in the library. Only a
relative few can get them from the graveyard. Edge goes to Traumatize if you
are trying to remove opponent's threat ability.
> 2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
>
> Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
> Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
>
> Draw
Yes
> 3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
>
> Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
> Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
> the library.
>
> Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
I disagree. As I said, recursion is not a big part of most player's decks,
including net decks (barring a Reanimator-style deck). Consider thinking
about it in a metagame-type conceptualization. How much do you think you'll
see library searchers? Anyone playing Black, Blue, certain artifacts, and
the odd other card. How much do you think you'll see cards that let you get
whatever you want from the graveyard? Recall, Timetwister variants,
Yawgmoth's Will, Feldon's Cane, Regrowth, Elven Cache, Restock, Gaea's
Blessing, and that's about it. (If I've forgotten anything, I'd say less
than five more cards total that would actually see play.) Plus then there's
Black liking to remove cards that are in the graveyard..
Edge (IMO): Traumatize.
> Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
> where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
>
> In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
> the _possibility_ of a win?
I suggest the following:
1. Better idea of opponent's deck composition, while revealing very little
about your own; and
2. Threat cards are placed in opponent's graveyard, where cards are harder
to retrieve than if still in the library.
This, added to the fact that, as already mentioned, a secondary win
condition is more likely, makes me prefer Traumatize much more over Cutter.
Erich
Justin Sexton
> On 17 Feb 2002 16:34:10 -0800, jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin
> Sexton) wrote:
>
> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote in message news:<20020217140550...@mb-fa.news.cs.com>...
> >> Compared with, card for card, Traumatize is far more efficient than any of
> >> these.
> >
> >In terms of total cards milled, yes. In terms of killing via milling,
> >no. Why? I'ts difficult to deal the final blow with Traumatize, since
> >it gets less efficient as the game progresses. Laquatus, on the other
> >hand, gets better, as you have more mana to sink.
>
> Eh. The one thing about milling (as opposed to damage) is that you
> often don't have to deal the final blow - the game mechanics will deal
> it for you, albeit more slowly. One Traumatize means I don't have to
> beat you anymore - you have to beat me. All I have to do is hold you
> off (which, of course, is easier said that done; but that's the fun of
> this game.)
>
> But again - that is *all* Traumatizing an opponent does.
True. Of course, the turn you tap out for Traumatize, they tend to
drop Mongeese and Blastoderms...
Justin
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote:
>>Kaos ka...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>>But with no guarantee as to who will be most advantaged by that -
>>>barring combos such as Tormod's Crypt or Haunting Echos.
>>
>>I dunno. Traumatize combos well with Replenish and Living Death,
>>also. :)
>>
>>The point is that Traumatize is like a Howling Mine -- you don't play it
>>unless you expect to take advantage of it.
>
>Absolutely. But to figure out if you can reasonably expect to take
>advantage of it, it's really a good idea to know what it doesn't do
>(which is deny your opponent access to threats in a meaningful and
>consistent manner.)
IMO, denial of threats is a minor side effect, simply because fewer decks use
the graveyard than the library, but not especially playable.
>>Yup. However, one assumes a non-scrub has a reason for casting
>> Traumatize, and an answer for what might occur.
>
>Yeah, but sometimes you do actually see scrubby moves made by guys
>who are almost-but-not-quite pros. I've made a few of them myself.
The difference is that a pro or near-pro knows if the move was bad, and takes
that into account for future play.
>>>meaningful (except cut down the time till I'm decked by half, which is
>>>also meaningless if you're not going to folow up on it.)
>>
>>Agree. But as I see Traumatize strictly as a support card, I would
>>always assume the deck has some sort of follow-up.
>
>Well, then we're out of discussing it as a blind-mill card and back to
>discussing it as a win-condition ;)
The blind mill effect of clearing half of their library is a major side effect
and is useful on its own, simply because the decks which are likely to use
Traumatize effectively will have decking as a primary or secondary win
condition.
>>The thing with Traumtaize is that you've got a *lot* of statistical things
>>which are immediately resolved. Worst case, for a controllish player,
>>suddenly, they gain very important information about the structure
>> nd contents of their opponent's deck, and better choose which
>> threats to respond to, allowing them to play more efficiently.
>
>Eh. A good control player can do that with Peek; and peek at least
>cantrips.
OK. You see an 3 Islands, 2 Counterspells, and a Morphling. What deck am I
playing? IMNSHO, you can't narrow it beyond control. You don't know whether
my hand is typical or not. You don't know if control is a major or minor deck
theme. You haven't determined what my threats and win conditions are, nor
whether my deck is threat-heavy or threat-light. You don't even know if my
deck is mono-blue.
Seeing less than a dozen cards provides far less deck information than seeing
at least half of an opponents deck.
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
>> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote...
>> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the decking
>> >> >aspect of Traumatize. Why? The discussion centers around
>> >> >Traumatizes use as a tool to reduce threats, not as a win
>> >> >condition.
>> >>
>> >> Isn't that like ignoring at the beating aspect of Spiritmonger?
>> >
>> >Not really. If the discussion is about how to beat someone by milling,
>> >then we should be comparing it to Whetstone, Millstone, Laquatus, etc.
>>
>> Compared with, card for card, Traumatize is far more efficient than any of
>> these.
>
>In terms of total cards milled, yes. In terms of killing via milling,
>no. Why? I'ts difficult to deal the final blow with Traumatize, since
>it gets less efficient as the game progresses. Laquatus, on the other
>hand, gets better, as you have more mana to sink.
Traumatize is a mid-game card, Laquata's is a late-game card. You need to get
past the mid-game to get to the late game. In my experience, it doesn't matter
what you use for the finish (Memory Jar, Haunting Echoes, Denying Wind,
Mill/Grind, or just letting them draw) -- you'll have won before you reach that
point.
>> >> >Let's compare Traumatize to a hypothetical card:
>> >> >Cutter
>> >> >3UU
>> >> >Sorcery
>> >> >Target player cuts his or her library.
>> >> >
>> >> >Playable?
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely not. Cutter is a crap card, strictly inferior to Portent,
>> >> which costs less, replaces itself, allows you to look at the top 3
>> >> cards of the library, and gives you the option of shuffling or
>> >> reordering those cards.
>> >
>> >Agree. My point is to demonstrate that Cutter is not very different
>> >from Traumatize.
>>
>> I see them as very different from a "threat reduction" standpoint. On
>> average, Traumatize cuts the number of threats remaining in library
>> in half, while leaving the number of threats and answers in my library
>> unchanged. Assuming that the game can be transormed into a situation
>> of neutral card advantage, Traumatize is a game winner.
>
>But assuming that most games end within fifteen or so turns, the
>bottom half of the library doesn't enter the equation much, if at all.
Right. Which is why Traumatize really belongs in a deck which wins slowly,
i.e. "classic" draw-go permission.
>We've been talking about fighting Trix, but let's look at other
>matchups, like Sligh or Stompy. Traumatize alone does nothing against
>them. Versus Draino or Reanimator, it helps them along considerably.
>Versus Oath with Blessing, you've likely wasted a card completely. See
>where I'm going?
Yes. And as I've noted, Traumatize isn't a win by itself. If you don't have
the followup, you simply don't cast it. Even against Reanimator, if the wrong
pieces end up in the graveyard, it's bad because an *uncontrolled* graveyard
isn't a good thing. The typical reanimator deck does *not* want to see a bunch
of land, search, and recursion in the graveyard, especially if playing
"bullets".
>If the best case for Traumatize is made about a
>control/combo deck like Trix, then that's pretty bad, since five-mana
>sorceries would tend to get countered a lot.
Still, it's better than Laquata's for five mana.
>> >Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
>> >whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
>> >library.
>>
>> It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
>
>??? I was talking about altering odds of where cards are in the
>library. How does a Counterspell change that?
The Counterspell trades with the Donate, so he effectively has no Donate in
hand. So it matters where the other 3 Donates are, and whether he can get
access to them.
>> >I have experience with probs and stats, okay?
>>
>> OK. This wasn't at all apparaent in the previous discussion.
>
>I was trying to keep it simple for all involved, myself included. :)
OK. That's fair.
>> >Both Cutter and Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from
>> >the center of your deck rather than the top. Barring library
>> >manipulation, neither affect the chances of drawing a particular
>> >card.
>>
>> Agreed. Right up to the point at which one draws to the equivalent of the
>> middle of the original library, because then one has no library to draw
>> against.
>
>I'm not sure what you're saying here.
In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case of
Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW, you've been
"decked".
>> Unlike, say, Star Wars, we don't continuously reshuffle graveyard
>> back into library, but rather, we recognize a "decking" win condition.
>
>True, and I acknowledge that Traumatize has the potential to help kill
>via decking. Notice, though, that it will never do the job by itself,
>since you can only get half the cards left, rounded down.
Exactly. Fortunately, players are required to draw at least 1 card per turn.
>> >> >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
>> >> >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
>> >> >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
>> >> >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
>> >>
>> >> However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can
>> >> see whether any Donates were in the top half of the library. So
>> >> that is useful.
>> >
>> >So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
>>
>> However, most opponent's decks aren't prepared to take advantage of
>> the graveyard as a resource, especially not having such a . Just like
>> Howling Mine, or Anvil of Bogardan. They only appear in decks which
>> take advantage of them.
>
>That is changing rapidly. Call of the Herd, Ichorid, anything with
>flashback, Squee, Hammer, Necrosavant, any deck sporting Nostalgic
>Dreams, Restock, Zombify, Life/Death, and a jillion other cards all
>would love to be hit with Traumatize. To them, Traumatize reads "Draw
>twenty or so cards and get Threshold."
Even with Flashback and Threshold, I'd say the majority of decks don't make
strong use of the graveyard. Most decks don't want Threshold, and most
Flashback is inefficient.
>> >Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
>> >
>> >1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
>> >
>> >Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
>> >tutors can get them. Playing Traumatize moves them all to the
>> >graveyard, where recursion can get them.
>> >
>> >Draw
>>
>> Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an
>> automatic loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so that
>> the match is no worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo deck,
>> Trix/Trick can win in the short time remaining to go 2-1.
>
>Perhaps. Of course, the sided-in Morphling can still get dropped for
>the win. This also assumes that a five-mana sorcery can resolve
>against a counter-heavy deck.
Trix/Trick isn't that counter-heavy. It's got 2 blocks of combo, with a couple
blocks of card drawing and tutor. A real counter deck easily outguns
Trix/Trick. Trix/Trick countering Traumatize is like permission countering
Illusions -- right answer, wrong timing and target...
>> >2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
>> >
>> >Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
>> >Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
>> >
>> >Draw
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>> >3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
>> >
>> >Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
>> >Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
>> >the library.
>> >
>> >Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
>>
>> No. Traumatize is better. Donate doesn't recur, many of it's tutors may
>> have been lost to the graveyard.
>
>Disagree. What, are we assuming that the top half of the library
>contained nothing but kill cards and tutors?
Nope.
>It's just as likely that
>the bottom did, and we just broke through their land glut and lost an
>otherwise auto-win. If the cards were more or less evenly mixed, then
>all we did was move them around to a new, random location.
However, half of the cards in their new, random locations are effectively
inaccessible to the deck. For a deck without recursion, Traumatize effectively
takes the top half of their (random) library out of game. For a deck which
lacks deep redundancy, and has "key" cards, this can be very bad.
>> >Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
>> >where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
>> >
>> >In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
>> >the _possibility_ of a win?
>>
>> As I've said before, Traumatize is an amplifier for things like Echoes,
>>Crypt, etc. It's a conditional card which is eminently playable in such
>> decks which depend on asymmetric graveyard/library conditions.
>> Cutter is not playable at all.
>
>Oh sure, Traumatize has some great combos, like Echoes. The start of
>this discussion, however, was whether it was worth playing two
>double-colored, five mana sorceries that _by themselves_ didn't
>accomplish much. That started the current thread that you and I are on
>opposite sides of.
Right. And I'm saying that cards are *never* just played by themselves
(assuming a non-scrub and non-broken card). A card is always played within a
deck context, and should be judged within that context. For example, Drain
Life is a good card. But you'd never play it by itself just because you can
(e.g. City of Brass, all plains on the board)
>Slightly OT: My God, it's great to actually debate a Magic issue with
>someone honest and intelligent, instead of witnessing a pointlessly
>expanding flamewar. John, it's been a pleasure so far. I mean that
>sincerely.
Agree.
Justin Sexton
This is, oddly, exactly my point. If a five mana sorcery is only good
if you have other cards to go with it, then it is bad on it's own.
Hence, there are better cards to play.
> Even against Reanimator, if the wrong
> pieces end up in the graveyard, it's bad because an *uncontrolled* graveyard
> isn't a good thing. The typical reanimator deck does *not* want to see a bunch
> of land, search, and recursion in the graveyard, especially if playing
> "bullets".
Sure. However, that's back to the same old argument. It's just as
likely that you've stocked his graveyard with all his critters, and he
can reanimate freely. In the long run, you've reached no advantage.
> >If the best case for Traumatize is made about a
> >control/combo deck like Trix, then that's pretty bad, since five-mana
> >sorceries would tend to get countered a lot.
>
> Still, it's better than Laquata's for five mana.
Debatable, but we'll save that for another thread. :)
> >> >Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
> >> >whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
> >> >library.
> >>
> >> It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
> >
> >??? I was talking about altering odds of where cards are in the
> >library. How does a Counterspell change that?
>
> The Counterspell trades with the Donate, so he effectively has no Donate in
> hand. So it matters where the other 3 Donates are, and whether he can get
> access to them.
Yes. And assuming that the other three are distributed randomly, then
over the long haul, there is zero net difference.
>
> >> >Both Cutter and Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from
> >> >the center of your deck rather than the top. Barring library
> >> >manipulation, neither affect the chances of drawing a particular
> >> >card.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Right up to the point at which one draws to the equivalent of the
> >> middle of the original library, because then one has no library to draw
> >> against.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you're saying here.
>
> In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case of
> Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW, you've been
> "decked".
Got it. I was making the assumption that most games don't reach card
number 26.
> >> Unlike, say, Star Wars, we don't continuously reshuffle graveyard
> >> back into library, but rather, we recognize a "decking" win condition.
> >
> >True, and I acknowledge that Traumatize has the potential to help kill
> >via decking. Notice, though, that it will never do the job by itself,
> >since you can only get half the cards left, rounded down.
>
> Exactly. Fortunately, players are required to draw at least 1 card per turn.
Yup. However, since the Traumatize has not affected board position,
nor reduced the ratio of threats in the library (net, over several
games), that one card per turn can still be used to kill you. Unless
you've established total control, of course, but then _any_ kill card
would work. For the mana, Morphling would be superior.
> >> >> >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> >> >> >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> >> >> >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> >> >> >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can
> >> >> see whether any Donates were in the top half of the library. So
> >> >> that is useful.
> >> >
> >> >So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
> >>
> >> However, most opponent's decks aren't prepared to take advantage of
> >> the graveyard as a resource, especially not having such a . Just like
> >> Howling Mine, or Anvil of Bogardan. They only appear in decks which
> >> take advantage of them.
> >
> >That is changing rapidly. Call of the Herd, Ichorid, anything with
> >flashback, Squee, Hammer, Necrosavant, any deck sporting Nostalgic
> >Dreams, Restock, Zombify, Life/Death, and a jillion other cards all
> >would love to be hit with Traumatize. To them, Traumatize reads "Draw
> >twenty or so cards and get Threshold."
>
> Even with Flashback and Threshold, I'd say the majority of decks don't make
> strong use of the graveyard. Most decks don't want Threshold, and most
> Flashback is inefficient.
Disagree. Many decks in both Standard and Extended want threshold very
badly, and every card I mentioned above is both effiecient and brutal.
All have appeared in tournament winning decks.
> >> >Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
> >> >
> >> >1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
> >> >
> >> >Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
> >> >tutors can get them. Playing Traumatize moves them all to the
> >> >graveyard, where recursion can get them.
> >> >
> >> >Draw
> >>
> >> Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an
> >> automatic loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so that
> >> the match is no worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo deck,
> >> Trix/Trick can win in the short time remaining to go 2-1.
> >
> >Perhaps. Of course, the sided-in Morphling can still get dropped for
> >the win. This also assumes that a five-mana sorcery can resolve
> >against a counter-heavy deck.
>
> Trix/Trick isn't that counter-heavy. It's got 2 blocks of combo, with a couple
> blocks of card drawing and tutor. A real counter deck easily outguns
> Trix/Trick. Trix/Trick countering Traumatize is like permission countering
> Illusions -- right answer, wrong timing and target...
If it shouldn't be countered, then it isn't much of a threat to them.
QED.
> >> >2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
> >> >
> >> >Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
> >> >Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
> >> >
> >> >Draw
> >>
> >> Agree.
> >>
> >> >3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
> >> >
> >> >Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
> >> >Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
> >> >the library.
> >> >
> >> >Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
> >>
> >> No. Traumatize is better. Donate doesn't recur, many of it's tutors may
> >> have been lost to the graveyard.
> >
> >Disagree. What, are we assuming that the top half of the library
> >contained nothing but kill cards and tutors?
>
> Nope.
>
> >It's just as likely that
> >the bottom did, and we just broke through their land glut and lost an
> >otherwise auto-win. If the cards were more or less evenly mixed, then
> >all we did was move them around to a new, random location.
>
> However, half of the cards in their new, random locations are effectively
> inaccessible to the deck. For a deck without recursion, Traumatize effectively
> takes the top half of their (random) library out of game. For a deck which
> lacks deep redundancy, and has "key" cards, this can be very bad.
Okay. As I said, though, a great many decks do make use of recursion.
What then?
> >> >Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
> >> >where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
> >> >
> >> >In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
> >> >the _possibility_ of a win?
> >>
> >> As I've said before, Traumatize is an amplifier for things like Echoes,
> >>Crypt, etc. It's a conditional card which is eminently playable in such
> >> decks which depend on asymmetric graveyard/library conditions.
> >> Cutter is not playable at all.
> >
> >Oh sure, Traumatize has some great combos, like Echoes. The start of
> >this discussion, however, was whether it was worth playing two
> >double-colored, five mana sorceries that _by themselves_ didn't
> >accomplish much. That started the current thread that you and I are on
> >opposite sides of.
>
> Right. And I'm saying that cards are *never* just played by themselves
> (assuming a non-scrub and non-broken card). A card is always played within a
> deck context, and should be judged within that context. For example, Drain
> Life is a good card. But you'd never play it by itself just because you can
> (e.g. City of Brass, all plains on the board)
Well, my focus was on Traumatize's merits on it's own. For the amount
of mana you have to spend main phase for such a random effect,
wouldn't you rather have something that was strong no matter what the
rest of your draw was?
> >Slightly OT: My God, it's great to actually debate a Magic issue with
> >someone honest and intelligent, instead of witnessing a pointlessly
> >expanding flamewar. John, it's been a pleasure so far. I mean that
> >sincerely.
>
> Agree.
Justin
Justin Sexton
Most Trix version don't, true. But elsewhere in the thread I mentioned
the large number of decks that do have access to the graveyard, like
Reanimator, or decks using Call of the Herd, Beast Attack, Squee,
Ichorid, etc. Those decks are helped by Traumatize.
> > > >Therefore, what's the practical difference between cutting
> > > >your deck, and putting half your cards in the graveyard?
> > > >None.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Placing half of the library in the graveyard is significant as
> it is
> > > entirely possible that *all* of one's threats are "clumped" in the top
> (or
> > > bottom) half of the library. This is why we occasionally experience
> "mana
> > > screw" (too little mana) and "mana flood" (too much mana), even though
> the > mana
> > > sources are randomly distributed throughout the deck.
> >
> > I have experience with probs and stats, okay? Both Cutter and
> > Traumatize are equivalent to drawing cards from the center of your
> > deck rather than the top. Barring library manipulation, neither affect
> > the chances of drawing a particular card.
>
> However, a large number of decks HAVE SOME kind of library manipulation that
> they use. Anything from Fact or Fiction and Opt to Vampiric Tutor to Oaths
> to Skyship Weatherlight to Eladamri's Call.. the list goes on. Ignoring this
> aspect of Traumatize is, in my opinion, a bad idea. (However, I will agree
> that, if library manipulation was being ignored, neither would be much
> better than the other, though I'd still favour Traumatize as it gave easier
> access to a second win condition. Otherwise, yes I agree.)
Looking at this from the flip side, if the opposing decks have tutors,
then it is easier for them to access the threats that still remain in
the library. Probability still dictates that over time, the games that
eliminate all kill cards and tutors will equal the games that
eliminate everything else.
> > > It seems that you, like several others, are confusing RANDOMNESS with
> > > UNIFORMITY. They're totally different, and explain why Traumatize is a
> > > playable card and Cutter is not. Randomness says that sometimes things
> are not
> > > uniformly distributed (and in fact, should *not* be uniform in
> individual games
> > > but *must* be uniform over an arbitrarily large number of games). This
> is why
> > > "mana leaving" (to achieve uniform mana distribution) is a form of deck
> > > manipulation.
> >
> > I'm aware of all that. Neither affect what cards are drawn in any way.
>
> It's not a question of what can be DRAWN. It's a question of "What can I get
> my hands on?" And library manipulation is a key part of many decks,
> including and especially Trix.
Yes. So even if a single Donate remains in the deck, they can still
tutor for it.
> > > >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> > > >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> > > >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> > > >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
> > >
> > > However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can see whether
> any
> > > Donates were in the top half of the library. So that is useful.
> >
> > So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
>
> Yes, but likely also more psychologically painful, because if it resolves,
> they know they have access to a lot less threats than before.
There is that. I, however, would not be psyched out, because I beleive
TRaumatize to be inferior, and my play testing has confirmed that for
me. :)
> > > While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the
> Traumatize
> > > *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by
> placing
> > > cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something
> non-uniform
> > > will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates), so that's
> pretty
> > > handy.
> >
> > Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
> >
> > 1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
> >
> > Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
> > tutors can get them.
> > Playing Traumatize moves them all to the graveyard, where recursion
> > can get them.
> >
> > Draw
>
> I disagree. Most search-based cards can access cards in the library. Only a
> relative few can get them from the graveyard. Edge goes to Traumatize if you
> are trying to remove opponent's threat ability.
True for Trix. Untrue for many other decks. Draw.
> > 2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
> >
> > Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
> > Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
> >
> > Draw
>
> Yes
>
> > 3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
> >
> > Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
> > Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
> > the library.
> >
> > Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
>
> I disagree. As I said, recursion is not a big part of most player's decks,
> including net decks (barring a Reanimator-style deck). Consider thinking
> about it in a metagame-type conceptualization. How much do you think you'll
> see library searchers? Anyone playing Black, Blue, certain artifacts, and
> the odd other card. How much do you think you'll see cards that let you get
> whatever you want from the graveyard? Recall, Timetwister variants,
> Yawgmoth's Will, Feldon's Cane, Regrowth, Elven Cache, Restock, Gaea's
> Blessing, and that's about it. (If I've forgotten anything, I'd say less
> than five more cards total that would actually see play.) Plus then there's
> Black liking to remove cards that are in the graveyard..
>
> Edge (IMO): Traumatize.
You're forgetting Ichorid, Squee, Hammer, all the flashback cards
(with more coming in Judgement) and giving decks Threshold. And
speaking of Blessing, note that it effectively counters Traumatize and
then some.
> > Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
> > where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
> >
> > In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
> > the _possibility_ of a win?
>
> I suggest the following:
>
> 1. Better idea of opponent's deck composition, while revealing very little
> about your own; and
This is true, however, in high-level Magic, you should be able to
write down a fairly accurate decklist for your opponent within five
turns, before Traunmatize would even be cast.
> 2. Threat cards are placed in opponent's graveyard, where cards are harder
> to retrieve than if still in the library.
Except that the ratio of threats is unchanged, generally speaking. If
the game is not decided by decking (and really, how often does that
happen?) then the _number_ of threats is irrelevant. The ratio is all
that matters, and Traumatize does not change that in the long run.
> This, added to the fact that, as already mentioned, a secondary win
> condition is more likely, makes me prefer Traumatize much more over Cutter.
As is your right. Dear Lord, this thread is getting long. I absolutely
love it. :)
Justin
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
>> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
>> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote...
>> >> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >We've been talking about fighting Trix, but let's look at other
>> >matchups, like Sligh or Stompy. Traumatize alone does nothing against
>> >them. Versus Draino or Reanimator, it helps them along considerably.
>> >Versus Oath with Blessing, you've likely wasted a card completely. See
>> >where I'm going?
>>
>> Yes. And as I've noted, Traumatize isn't a win by itself. If you don't
>>have the followup, you simply don't cast it.
>
>This is, oddly, exactly my point. If a five mana sorcery is only good
>if you have other cards to go with it, then it is bad on it's own.
>Hence, there are better cards to play.
Would you claim this of any other "setup" card? Buried Alive isn't a win
either. You need a recursion card to make use of it.
Heck, Wheel of Fortune and Memory Jar are both auto-loss if you have 6 or fewer
cards in library, yet most people consider them to be so powerful they require
Restriction in Type 1 play.
>> Even against Reanimator, if the wrong pieces end up in the graveyard,
>> it's bad because an *uncontrolled* graveyard isn't a good thing. The
typical
>> reanimator deck does *not* want to see a bunch of land, search, and
>> recursion in the graveyard, especially if playing "bullets".
>
>Sure. However, that's back to the same old argument. It's just as
>likely that you've stocked his graveyard with all his critters, and he
>can reanimate freely. In the long run, you've reached no advantage.
There is *no* reason to expect individual games to conform to long-term
statistics. Losing access to half of my search and recursion is a bad thing
against a control deck.
>> >If the best case for Traumatize is made about a
>> >control/combo deck like Trix, then that's pretty bad, since five-mana
>> >sorceries would tend to get countered a lot.
>>
>> Still, it's better than Laquata's for five mana.
>
>Debatable, but we'll save that for another thread. :)
OK, later.
>> >> >Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
>> >> >whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
>> >> >library.
>> >>
>> >> It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
>> >
>> >??? I was talking about altering odds of where cards are in the
>> >library. How does a Counterspell change that?
>>
>> The Counterspell trades with the Donate, so he effectively has no Donate in
>> hand. So it matters where the other 3 Donates are, and whether he can get
>> access to them.
>
>Yes. And assuming that the other three are distributed randomly, then
>over the long haul, there is zero net difference.
I think there's a minor net difference, and it's all in taking the initiative
and controlling things.
>> In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case of
>> Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW, you've been
>> "decked".
>
>Got it. I was making the assumption that most games don't reach card
>number 26.
Most games don't. However, as Traumatize wants players to burn through cards,
to allow for a decking win, in this particular case, it can be assumed that the
Traumatize deck is so organized.
>> >> Unlike, say, Star Wars, we don't continuously reshuffle graveyard
>> >> back into library, but rather, we recognize a "decking" win condition.
>> >
>> >True, and I acknowledge that Traumatize has the potential to help kill
>> >via decking. Notice, though, that it will never do the job by itself,
>> >since you can only get half the cards left, rounded down.
>>
>> Exactly. Fortunately, players are required to draw at least 1 card per
>>turn.
>
>Yup. However, since the Traumatize has not affected board position,
>nor reduced the ratio of threats in the library (net, over several
>games), that one card per turn can still be used to kill you. Unless
>you've established total control, of course, but then _any_ kill card
>would work.
Traumatize isn't a kill card. It's a setup card.
>For the mana, Morphling would be superior.
But this is a different sort of deck.
>> >> >So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
>> >>
>> >> However, most opponent's decks aren't prepared to take advantage of
>> >> the graveyard as a resource, especially not having such a . Just like
>> >> Howling Mine, or Anvil of Bogardan. They only appear in decks which
>> >> take advantage of them.
>> >
>> >That is changing rapidly. Call of the Herd, Ichorid, anything with
>> >flashback, Squee, Hammer, Necrosavant, any deck sporting Nostalgic
>> >Dreams, Restock, Zombify, Life/Death, and a jillion other cards all
>> >would love to be hit with Traumatize. To them, Traumatize reads "Draw
>> >twenty or so cards and get Threshold."
>>
>> Even with Flashback and Threshold, I'd say the majority of decks don't make
>> strong use of the graveyard. Most decks don't want Threshold, and most
>> Flashback is inefficient.
>
>Disagree. Many decks in both Standard and Extended want threshold very
>badly, and every card I mentioned above is both effiecient and brutal.
>All have appeared in tournament winning decks.
Flashback and Threshold are Type 2 mechanics, so *of course* there will be T2
tournament-winning decks built around them.
I'd wait for a Type 1 (not Extended) "season" before making any grand
pronouncements about what is and isn't tournament-worthy.
>> >> Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an
>> >> automatic loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so that
>> >> the match is no worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo deck,
>> >> Trix/Trick can win in the short time remaining to go 2-1.
>> >
>> >Perhaps. Of course, the sided-in Morphling can still get dropped for
>> >the win. This also assumes that a five-mana sorcery can resolve
>> >against a counter-heavy deck.
>>
>> Trix/Trick isn't that counter-heavy. It's got 2 blocks of combo, with a
>> couple blocks of card drawing and tutor. A real counter deck easily outguns
>> Trix/Trick. Trix/Trick countering Traumatize is like permission countering
>> Illusions -- right answer, wrong timing and target...
>
>If it shouldn't be countered, then it isn't much of a threat to them.
>QED.
Traumatize is like a tutor. You don't counter the tutor -- you counter the
*threat*.
And I don't think I've ever claimed Traumatize is a threat per-se. I've always
looked at it as setup. So !QED.
>> However, half of the cards in their new, random locations are effectively
>> inaccessible to the deck. For a deck without recursion, Traumatize
>> effectively takes the top half of their (random) library out of game.
>> For a deck which lacks deep redundancy, and has "key" cards, this
>> can be very bad.
>
>Okay. As I said, though, a great many decks do make use of recursion.
>What then?
Then you make sure that you've got your follow-up primed and protected before
you cast your setup.
>> >> As I've said before, Traumatize is an amplifier for things like Echoes,
>> >>Crypt, etc. It's a conditional card which is eminently playable in such
>> >> decks which depend on asymmetric graveyard/library conditions.
>> >> Cutter is not playable at all.
>> >
>> >Oh sure, Traumatize has some great combos, like Echoes. The start of
>> >this discussion, however, was whether it was worth playing two
>> >double-colored, five mana sorceries that _by themselves_ didn't
>> >accomplish much. That started the current thread that you and I are on
>> >opposite sides of.
>>
>> Right. And I'm saying that cards are *never* just played by themselves
>> (assuming a non-scrub and non-broken card). A card is always played
>> within a deck context, and should be judged within that context. For
>> example, Drain Life is a good card. But you'd never play it by itself just
>> because you can (e.g. City of Brass, all plains on the board)
>
>Well, my focus was on Traumatize's merits on it's own. For the amount
>of mana you have to spend main phase for such a random effect,
>wouldn't you rather have something that was strong no matter what the
>rest of your draw was?
Depends entirely on the deck. Decks aren't cards. They're clusters of things
which work together. Traumatize works in some decks and not others.
I maindeck one in my deckripper precisely because I can combo it with Crypt and
Echoes and my win condition revolves around taking my opponents threats OOG.
In that deck, it's a good card and worth playing. If I draw it, I'll wait
until it's time to cast it.
The only time I cast it "early" is if it's clear that my opponent is mana
screwed or mana flooded. In that case, it's a calculated gamble that it'll
amplify the mana screw or flood .
Kaos
wrote:
>Kaos wrote:
>
>> Duress also has the advantage of costing your opponent a draw.
>> Traumatize does *not* do that. Echos, OTOH, radically alter the
>> threat-probabilities of future draws.
>
>So no milling. New idea: Duress, Addle, Haunting Echoes. Example: Duress
>for Fact or Fiction, Addle (blue) for Psychatog, some more cards, Haunting
>Echoes. You completely destroy the deck strategy. Should be an easy win now.
Heh. I was thinking basic discard, backed by one or two Haunting
Echos and a couple Lobotomy. Of course, to take out 'Tog you have to
get those by the countersupport.
Madness puts a small kink into discard-strategies, though. It's like
traumatizing my crappy recursion deck, you do half his work for him.
HCCommander
>
> Madness puts a small kink into discard-strategies, though. It's like
> traumatizing my crappy recursion deck, you do half his work for him.
At the moment, I wouldn't play any discard spell that lets my opponent
choose which card to discard. But if _I_ choose, things should be fine.
Erich Leibrock
news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "Erich Leibrock" <elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<VM7c8.42022$JZ.42...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Justin Sexton" <jsextonpr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
Yes and no. Squee and Reanimator may be helped or harmed, depending on what
the opponent has in hand, in play, and in the graveyard. Here it can be a
tossup. Call and Beast can be hurt, if you want to think about it this way:
You've just reduced the amount of times that card can be played from twice
to once. Instead of being able to get two 4/4 Beast tokens, you now can only
get a single one, and the card is removed from game. A simple bounce
spell/ability will knock off the remaining token.
However, do they have enough searchers to dig for what they need to kill you
out of what they have left? And for those few decks that run neither
searchers nor recursion, Traumatize is a very powerful card indeed.
> > > > It seems that you, like several others, are confusing RANDOMNESS
with
> > > > UNIFORMITY. They're totally different, and explain why Traumatize
is a
> > > > playable card and Cutter is not. Randomness says that sometimes
things
> > are not
> > > > uniformly distributed (and in fact, should *not* be uniform in
> > individual games
> > > > but *must* be uniform over an arbitrarily large number of games).
This
> > is why
> > > > "mana leaving" (to achieve uniform mana distribution) is a form of
deck
> > > > manipulation.
> > >
> > > I'm aware of all that. Neither affect what cards are drawn in any way.
> >
> > It's not a question of what can be DRAWN. It's a question of "What can I
get
> > my hands on?" And library manipulation is a key part of many decks,
> > including and especially Trix.
>
> Yes. So even if a single Donate remains in the deck, they can still
> tutor for it.
And I only need a single Counterspell or bounce card to get rid of it,
instead of having to stop it three or four times.
> > > > >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> > > > >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> > > > >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> > > > >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
> > > >
> > > > However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can see
whether
> > any
> > > > Donates were in the top half of the library. So that is useful.
> > >
> > > So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
> >
> > Yes, but likely also more psychologically painful, because if it
resolves,
> > they know they have access to a lot less threats than before.
>
> There is that. I, however, would not be psyched out, because I beleive
> TRaumatize to be inferior, and my play testing has confirmed that for
> me. :)
Again, it depends on what you're facing, and what you're playing. It's not
always a question of being psyched out or not, it's a question on whether
you are able to continue producing enough threats to kill me off. With
likely half of your remaining threats now in your graveyard, do you have
enough to continue on?
> > > > While the odds are the same, the fact of the matter is that the
> > Traumatize
> > > > *forces* the immediate calculation and resolution of those odds by
> > placing
> > > > cards from the library into the graveyard. And usually, something
> > non-uniform
> > > > will happen (e.g. getting a non-uniform number of Donates), so
that's
> > pretty
> > > > handy.
> > >
> > > Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
> > >
> > > 1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
> > >
> > > Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
> > > tutors can get them.
> > > Playing Traumatize moves them all to the graveyard, where recursion
> > > can get them.
> > >
> > > Draw
> >
> > I disagree. Most search-based cards can access cards in the library.
Only a
> > relative few can get them from the graveyard. Edge goes to Traumatize if
you
> > are trying to remove opponent's threat ability.
>
> True for Trix. Untrue for many other decks. Draw.
True for not only Trix but many other decks as well - any that rely on only
a few cards to deliver win conditions. I believe Brian Weissman's original
"The Deck" 's only real to win was a couple of Serra Angels. If both of
those hit the grave, game over.
However, realistically there aren't many decks (out of all of them) that I
see where Flashback and Threshold make any real difference (would YOU play
Ancestral Tribute, or Kamahl's Sledge?). A Winter Orb deck can still shut
down a Draino deck, for instance. Trauming Hammer means that you have
generally two more turns before your opponent can use it on you (once to
return it, once to play it). With Ichorid I've stopped one use of it, and
now make him eat his graveyard to put it back into play. The only card I'd
really care about is Squee. Nether Spirit won't likely be making any return
appearances either.
Plus, by the time you can cast Traumatize, your opponent likely has
Threshold anyways.
> > > Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
> > > where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
> > >
> > > In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
> > > the _possibility_ of a win?
> >
> > I suggest the following:
> >
> > 1. Better idea of opponent's deck composition, while revealing very
little
> > about your own; and
>
> This is true, however, in high-level Magic, you should be able to
> write down a fairly accurate decklist for your opponent within five
> turns, before Traunmatize would even be cast.
Possibly, but that depends on what your opponent has played thus far. If you
play:
T1. Swamp, Duress
T2. Swamp, Sinkhole
T3. Swamp, Phyrexian Arena
T4. Swamp, Phyrexian Negator
T5. Sol Ring, Sengir Vampire
What do I know about your deck? Are you playing Land Destruction, Discard, a
black Beatdown deck, or what? I know that chances are you have four each of
four of your cards, with Sol Ring being restricted and the Arena may be
anywhere from one to four. Is Duress or Sinkhole key to the deck? Or are
they both just cheap and efficient and designed to throw me off the scent?
> > 2. Threat cards are placed in opponent's graveyard, where cards are
harder
> > to retrieve than if still in the library.
>
> Except that the ratio of threats is unchanged, generally speaking. If
> the game is not decided by decking (and really, how often does that
> happen?) then the _number_ of threats is irrelevant. The ratio is all
> that matters, and Traumatize does not change that in the long run.
I disagree. The ratio of what remains in your deck is more important. Sure,
on average, you will likely make your opponent lose twenty-ish cards (the
remaining being a combination of what you started with and what you drew),
but the composition of those twenty-ish cards is very important. What if
you're playing a Threshold deck, and most of your important cards that are
based on Threshold are now in the graveyard? Now you have to think "OK, what
do I have left to work with? Out of my four Mystic Enforcers, two just got
milled, and one was beat before Threshold hit. Hmmm.. looking at my
graveyard, I will need to draw {set of cards} if I am going to be able to
draw it relatively quickly. What else do I have to work with now?"
Traumatize, if successfully played, can force your opponent to alter playing
strategy based on what he has left to draw. It can also be looked at as a
pre-emptive super-counter, similar to Duress (except that it takes the cards
from the library instead of hand), with the additional effect that it can
"counter" lands as well. I do agree, however, that its usefulness is partly
dependent on the deck you're facing. I also agree, however, that a deck with
Traumatize in it typically has a specific use for it in mind (such as
Echoes, Millstone, or a quick way for yourself to achieve Threshold).
> > This, added to the fact that, as already mentioned, a secondary win
> > condition is more likely, makes me prefer Traumatize much more over
Cutter.
>
> As is your right. Dear Lord, this thread is getting long. I absolutely
> love it. :)
As do I :-) Who'da thunk that this card would inspire this much debate? :-)
Incidentally, I understand your position; I just feel that it's better than
you're giving it credit for :-)
Erich
Erich Leibrock
news:a4th6k$muo$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
> Kaos wrote:
>
> >
> > Madness puts a small kink into discard-strategies, though. It's like
> > traumatizing my crappy recursion deck, you do half his work for him.
>
> At the moment, I wouldn't play any discard spell that lets my opponent
> choose which card to discard. But if _I_ choose, things should be fine.
What about random discard ( I'm thinking older formats here, obviously.. I
love Type 1 :-) )
Erich
Izzatrix
Traumatize as a single card in an Extended environment. In that card
pool, it is pretty clear from other cards that are not in vogue that
Traumatize is just too slow. For example, Jesters' Cap has not been
popular in extended play for a long time. For all practical purposes,
JC is a 6cc card to remove 3 specific threats from an opposing deck.
No deck, even Donate is so narrow anymore that the removal of 3 cards
is going to cripple it. Furthermore, the probability of the Cap ever making
it into play against a control deck is unlikely so it stays on the
sidelines.
Similarly, Traumatize is just not likely to resolve against most decks
running Counterspells. Since the Traumatize probably will not win the
game outright, backing it up with a mass of ACC counters and other
support cards seems less fruitful than playing those same cards with a
more powerful win condition (such as Morphling).
Historically, milling effects have tended to not be the best way to limit
an opponents threats or resources. It is much easier in a control deck
to eliminate specific threats as they appear while building up your own
threats and resources. Considering how easily Traumatize can be dealt
with (or even ignored) via recursion, countering, or pure speed, I think
we can rule out Traumatize as a tier 1 card in Extended or Type 1.
In Standard, the play is a little slower, but the threats are more varied.
While certain versions of the Psychatog deck can conceivably be beaten
by a lucky Traumatize, most decks have multiple kill methods and again
require a better solution.
L. Himelhoch
Justin Sexton
> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton)
> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
> >> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
> >> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
> >> >> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote...
> >> >> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>
> >> >We've been talking about fighting Trix, but let's look at other
> >> >matchups, like Sligh or Stompy. Traumatize alone does nothing against
> >> >them. Versus Draino or Reanimator, it helps them along considerably.
> >> >Versus Oath with Blessing, you've likely wasted a card completely. See
> >> >where I'm going?
> >>
> >> Yes. And as I've noted, Traumatize isn't a win by itself. If you don't
> >>have the followup, you simply don't cast it.
> >
> >This is, oddly, exactly my point. If a five mana sorcery is only good
> >if you have other cards to go with it, then it is bad on it's own.
> >Hence, there are better cards to play.
>
> Would you claim this of any other "setup" card? Buried Alive isn't a win
> either. You need a recursion card to make use of it.
True. Buried Alive is much cheaper, however, and sets up a combo
(Living Death) that gains card advantage and should gain significant
board advantage. No combo with Traumatize does either.
> Heck, Wheel of Fortune and Memory Jar are both auto-loss if you have 6 or fewer
> cards in library, yet most people consider them to be so powerful they require
> Restriction in Type 1 play.
Wheel of Fortune gains card advantage when used properly. Same with
Jar, altough it's usually used only in a pure combo deck.
> >> Even against Reanimator, if the wrong pieces end up in the graveyard,
> >> it's bad because an *uncontrolled* graveyard isn't a good thing. The
> typical
> >> reanimator deck does *not* want to see a bunch of land, search, and
> >> recursion in the graveyard, especially if playing "bullets".
> >
> >Sure. However, that's back to the same old argument. It's just as
> >likely that you've stocked his graveyard with all his critters, and he
> >can reanimate freely. In the long run, you've reached no advantage.
>
> There is *no* reason to expect individual games to conform to long-term
> statistics. Losing access to half of my search and recursion is a bad thing
> against a control deck.
But in order to judge a cards worthiness, you have to look at it's
effective ness over many, many games. Sure, I can conceive a game in
which Sorrow's Path was a game winner. It may even happen once in a
while. It's not a good argument for it's overall effectiveness. Since
Traumatize is a blind mill effect, the times where it hits good cards
will equal the times it hits bad cards, over time.
> >> >> >Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
> >> >> >whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of your
> >> >> >library.
> >> >>
> >> >> It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
> >> >
> >> >??? I was talking about altering odds of where cards are in the
> >> >library. How does a Counterspell change that?
> >>
> >> The Counterspell trades with the Donate, so he effectively has no Donate in
> >> hand. So it matters where the other 3 Donates are, and whether he can get
> >> access to them.
> >
> >Yes. And assuming that the other three are distributed randomly, then
> >over the long haul, there is zero net difference.
>
> I think there's a minor net difference, and it's all in taking the initiative
> and controlling things.
But you can't know what you're controlling. It's a blind mill.
> >> In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case of
> >> Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW, you've been
> >> "decked".
> >
> >Got it. I was making the assumption that most games don't reach card
> >number 26.
>
> Most games don't. However, as Traumatize wants players to burn through cards,
> to allow for a decking win, in this particular case, it can be assumed that the
> Traumatize deck is so organized.
I'll concede this point. Note, though, that since Traumatize doesn't
affect board position, it's still makes it easy to be killed while
waiting for them to be decked.
I guess that's a concession.
> I'd wait for a Type 1 (not Extended) "season" before making any grand
> pronouncements about what is and isn't tournament-worthy.
Are you seriously proposing Traumatize as a Type 1 card? That's a
whole 'nother debate.
> >> >> Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an
> >> >> automatic loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so that
> >> >> the match is no worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo deck,
> >> >> Trix/Trick can win in the short time remaining to go 2-1.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps. Of course, the sided-in Morphling can still get dropped for
> >> >the win. This also assumes that a five-mana sorcery can resolve
> >> >against a counter-heavy deck.
> >>
> >> Trix/Trick isn't that counter-heavy. It's got 2 blocks of combo, with a
> >> couple blocks of card drawing and tutor. A real counter deck easily outguns
> >> Trix/Trick. Trix/Trick countering Traumatize is like permission countering
> >> Illusions -- right answer, wrong timing and target...
> >
> >If it shouldn't be countered, then it isn't much of a threat to them.
> >QED.
>
> Traumatize is like a tutor. You don't counter the tutor -- you counter the
> *threat*.
>
> And I don't think I've ever claimed Traumatize is a threat per-se. I've
> always looked at it as setup. So !QED.
Tutors _get_ the follow up. Traumatize sits useless in your hand until
you draw it's follow-up. Not what I want for five mana.
> >> However, half of the cards in their new, random locations are effectively
> >> inaccessible to the deck. For a deck without recursion, Traumatize
> >> effectively takes the top half of their (random) library out of game.
> >> For a deck which lacks deep redundancy, and has "key" cards, this
> >> can be very bad.
> >
> >Okay. As I said, though, a great many decks do make use of recursion.
> >What then?
>
> Then you make sure that you've got your follow-up primed and protected before
> you cast your setup.
Er. Where is all this mana coming from, that you can tap five on your
turn and still have multiple counter backup?
Strongly disagree with this one. Any probs and stats experience should
tell you that mathematically, you're dead wrong. Even real life will
tell you that you just eliminated a "clump," and probably helped them
out considerably.
Justin
Peter Watt
"Justin Sexton" <jsextonpr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
I think the point here is a speed thing, Traumitize and Echoies is a combo,
granted but it is slow to hit and leaves the board position untouched so
provides no tempo. I feel it is akin to say, Cabal Coffers and Deathgrasp,
powerful if given enough time and left unchecked but too slow to Tier 1.
> > >> Even against Reanimator, if the wrong pieces end up in the
graveyard,
> > >> it's bad because an *uncontrolled* graveyard isn't a good thing.
The
> > typical
> > >> reanimator deck does *not* want to see a bunch of land, search, and
> > >> recursion in the graveyard, especially if playing "bullets".
> > >
> > >Sure. However, that's back to the same old argument. It's just as
> > >likely that you've stocked his graveyard with all his critters, and he
> > >can reanimate freely. In the long run, you've reached no advantage.
> >
> > There is *no* reason to expect individual games to conform to long-term
> > statistics. Losing access to half of my search and recursion is a bad
thing
> > against a control deck.
Again I think the arguements are getting confused. The whole strategy of
Recursion is to get things in the graveyard, sometimes targetted, like
buried alive, sometimes blind, like Hermit Druid. The traumitize is
reinforcing this decks strength but this is only one deck in the field.
> > >> >> >Sure, but even if one Donate is in your hand, it doesn't change
> > >> >> >whether your three remaining ones are at the top or bottom of
your
> > >> >> >library.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It matters a lot if your opponent is holding a Counterspell.
> > >> >
> > >> >??? I was talking about altering odds of where cards are in the
> > >> >library. How does a Counterspell change that?
> > >>
> > >> The Counterspell trades with the Donate, so he effectively has no
Donate in
> > >> hand. So it matters where the other 3 Donates are, and whether he
can get
> > >> access to them.
> > >
> > >Yes. And assuming that the other three are distributed randomly, then
> > >over the long haul, there is zero net difference.
> >
> > I think there's a minor net difference, and it's all in taking the
initiative
> > and controlling things.
>
> But you can't know what you're controlling. It's a blind mill.
Traumitize is not control, it is blind, in the short term, there is very
little difference between your graveyard and your library, ie the cards are
unaccessible. The slight effect is that traumatize may catch some key cards
thus reducing the potential of future draws. Do not be mistaken this is a
slight effect. There is little difference on turn five between cards in your
graveyard and cards on the bottom of your library.
>
> > >> In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case of
> > >> Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW, you've
been
> > >> "decked".
> > >
> > >Got it. I was making the assumption that most games don't reach card
> > >number 26.
> >
> > Most games don't. However, as Traumatize wants players to burn through
cards,
> > to allow for a decking win, in this particular case, it can be assumed
that the
> > Traumatize deck is so organized.
>
> I'll concede this point. Note, though, that since Traumatize doesn't
> affect board position, it's still makes it easy to be killed while
> waiting for them to be decked.
This still leaves open the question of defending yourself through your
opponents action for the first ten turns
> > >Yup. However, since the Traumatize has not affected board position,
> > >nor reduced the ratio of threats in the library (net, over several
> > >games), that one card per turn can still be used to kill you. Unless
> > >you've established total control, of course, but then _any_ kill card
> > >would work.
> >
> > Traumatize isn't a kill card. It's a setup card.
A set up for what, haunting echoes? The field is all blue and the setup
costs 5 with the kill(?) costing 5 as well. I have played a gainst atype two
Tramatize Echoes deck with red green and was hit by turn 4 tramuatize, turn
echoes - and then I attacked and burnt out of my hand for the finish. The
point being his kill mechanism still provided me enough draws to finish the
job
No - the point is Supor Gro finished the season as Tier 1 - it likes
threshold and doesnt need many turns to change the life counter from 20 to
0.
PT junk was also a contender, and it has Call of the herd which is arguably
the best flashback card in the game
Both Tier 1 both extended and both decks I think your startegy would
struggle to beat
>
> > I'd wait for a Type 1 (not Extended) "season" before making any grand
> > pronouncements about what is and isn't tournament-worthy.
>
> Are you seriously proposing Traumatize as a Type 1 card? That's a
> whole 'nother debate.
No, a debate implies a two sided argument - Traumitize is not a type 1
strategy
> > >> >> Nope. Trix/Trick doesn't use recursion, so this game is likely an
> > >> >> automatic loss. OTOH, Trix/Trick *should* draw the game out, so
that
> > >> >> the match is no worse than 0-1-1 on time; being a fast combo
deck,
> > >> >> Trix/Trick can win in the short time remaining to go 2-1.
> > >> >
> > >> >Perhaps. Of course, the sided-in Morphling can still get dropped for
> > >> >the win. This also assumes that a five-mana sorcery can resolve
> > >> >against a counter-heavy deck.
> > >>
> > >> Trix/Trick isn't that counter-heavy. It's got 2 blocks of combo,
with a
> > >> couple blocks of card drawing and tutor. A real counter deck easily
outguns
> > >> Trix/Trick. Trix/Trick countering Traumatize is like permission
countering
> > >> Illusions -- right answer, wrong timing and target...
> > >
> > >If it shouldn't be countered, then it isn't much of a threat to them.
> > >QED.
> >
> > Traumatize is like a tutor. You don't counter the tutor -- you counter
the
> > *threat*.
See Oscar Tan on Starcity - mind you he was worried his opponent weas going
to tutor for a Library of Alexandria so I think he can be excused
> >
> > And I don't think I've ever claimed Traumatize is a threat per-se. I've
> > always looked at it as setup. So !QED.
Setup for what, you leave your opponent an uncontested turn 5 or 6 to do
what he wants or you pitch cards in hand destroy your mana base to ACC some
counters (whihc he may be willing to do as well)
> > >> However, half of the cards in their new, random locations are
effectively
> > >> inaccessible to the deck. For a deck without recursion, Traumatize
> > >> effectively takes the top half of their (random) library out of game.
> > >> For a deck which lacks deep redundancy, and has "key" cards, this
> > >> can be very bad.
If a deck doesn't have search (ie not blue ie not playing counters anyway)
and is not using recursion (most decks will use some recursion - black
obviously, green has Call and even Red has the Hammer) then the placement of
cards in the library or graveyard is mostly irrelevent.
Its the same for life totals - I am playing against Trix therefore the only
significance my life has is whether it is over 20 or not. I am playing
against Junk, my life is largely irrelevnt until it is below 10, I am
playing against sligh my life is irrelevent from turn 4 on assumiong my
opponent ends my turn with 2 cards in hand.
Your life is packaged into bundles equivalent to your opponents threats so
is your library against a millstone deck
> > >Okay. As I said, though, a great many decks do make use of recursion.
> > >What then?
> >
> > Then you make sure that you've got your follow-up primed and protected
before
> > you cast your setup.
>
> Er. Where is all this mana coming from, that you can tap five on your
> turn and still have multiple counter backup?
>
> > >> >> As I've said before, Traumatize is an amplifier for things like
Echoes,
> > >> >>Crypt, etc. It's a conditional card which is eminently playable in
such
> > >> >> decks which depend on asymmetric graveyard/library conditions.
> > >> >> Cutter is not playable at all.
Echoes is not a game winner outright it still provides a window
> > >> >Oh sure, Traumatize has some great combos, like Echoes. The start of
> > >> >this discussion, however, was whether it was worth playing two
> > >> >double-colored, five mana sorceries that _by themselves_ didn't
> > >> >accomplish much. That started the current thread that you and I are
on
> > >> >opposite sides of.
> > >>
> > >> Right. And I'm saying that cards are *never* just played by
themselves
> > >> (assuming a non-scrub and non-broken card). A card is always played
> > >> within a deck context, and should be judged within that context. For
> > >> example, Drain Life is a good card. But you'd never play it by
itself just
> > >> because you can (e.g. City of Brass, all plains on the board)
True, but cards are *always* played in the context of the field and the
field seems to bea ble to handle two 5 casting sorceries
> > >
> > >Well, my focus was on Traumatize's merits on it's own. For the amount
> > >of mana you have to spend main phase for such a random effect,
> > >wouldn't you rather have something that was strong no matter what the
> > >rest of your draw was?
> >
> > Depends entirely on the deck. Decks aren't cards. They're clusters of
things
> > which work together. Traumatize works in some decks and not others.
> >
> > I maindeck one in my deckripper precisely because I can combo it with
Crypt and
> > Echoes and my win condition revolves around taking my opponents threats
OOG.
> > In that deck, it's a good card and worth playing. If I draw it, I'll
wait
> > until it's time to cast it.
Traumitize does not take threats out of the game, Threats are on the board
and most decks have multiple threats, possibly with the exception of Combo
> >
> > The only time I cast it "early" is if it's clear that my opponent is
mana
> > screwed or mana flooded. In that case, it's a calculated gamble that
it'll
> > amplify the mana screw or flood .
>
> Strongly disagree with this one. Any probs and stats experience should
> tell you that mathematically, you're dead wrong. Even real life will
> tell you that you just eliminated a "clump," and probably helped them
> out considerably.
>
> Justin
The chance of a clump in the top or bottom of an opponents library are just
as likely, assuming no Library manipulation or vision, traumatize does
nothing to affect the next draw, I don't know what the top card of a 50 card
library is nor the 26th card down therefore all traumitzie does is make me
count cards and do a slight bit of maths (oh no, two of 4 'kill' cards are
in the graveyard now the probability has gone down from 4/50 to 2/25 - oh -
yeah)
Sorry, I feel it is too slow and unwieldy, great when it works but it is
just a 'help me win bigger' card
LLG
Erich Leibrock
news:a4u6r7$k13$1...@zeus.orl.lmco.com...
> The discussion so far seems to limit the discussion of the merit of
> Traumatize as a single card in an Extended environment. In that card
At this point, pretty much. We're looking at Traumatize in a tournament
setting in general. Extended came up because I used Trix as an example, and
Trix is typically ony run in Extended.
> pool, it is pretty clear from other cards that are not in vogue that
> Traumatize is just too slow. For example, Jesters' Cap has not been
> popular in extended play for a long time. For all practical purposes,
> JC is a 6cc card to remove 3 specific threats from an opposing deck.
Also playable by turn four. And it tells you the exact composition of your
opponent's deck, barring what was in your opponent's hand.
> No deck, even Donate is so narrow anymore that the removal of 3 cards
> is going to cripple it. Furthermore, the probability of the Cap ever
making
> it into play against a control deck is unlikely so it stays on the
> sidelines.
Unless it only runs three Donates (which is quite possible). Even if it runs
four, getting to the fourth will be a pain, to say the least.
However, I agree; Cap is too easy to kill off quickly vs most decks.
> Similarly, Traumatize is just not likely to resolve against most decks
> running Counterspells. Since the Traumatize probably will not win the
> game outright, backing it up with a mass of ACC counters and other
> support cards seems less fruitful than playing those same cards with a
> more powerful win condition (such as Morphling).
You don't need "a mass of ACC counters" to protect it, but some backup is
always good. Most blue Extended decks running counters will run 4 Force of
Will. And I would not build a deck around Traumatize only, but I don't see
why it shouldn't see play in decks that can use it.
> Historically, milling effects have tended to not be the best way to limit
> an opponents threats or resources. It is much easier in a control deck
> to eliminate specific threats as they appear while building up your own
> threats and resources. Considering how easily Traumatize can be dealt
> with (or even ignored) via recursion, countering, or pure speed, I think
> we can rule out Traumatize as a tier 1 card in Extended or Type 1.
Of course, milling has almost always been very cheap and "a card or two at a
time" sort of thing. For example, the concept-based Millstone. Each time you
pay two mana and tap it, it puts two cards from your opponent's library into
the graveyard. Two cards at a time is NOT going to do very much. However,
TWENTY cards in one shot can make a much bigger impact. Ten Millstone
activations (requiring a minimum expenditure of 22 mana - this is one
Millstone, but over 10 turns; less turns increases the amount of mana
required, because you'll need more Millstones to do this) would be required
to get the same effect. The only cost-efficient way I know of to have a
chance to do this (mill for 20 in one shot) would be to use Grindstone.
That's part of the reason why milling never caught on (though sometimes
Millstone is added as an extra victory option, "just in case").
Traumatize can, IMO, be a good card for Type 1, partly becuase there's
obscene ways to get fast mana. Adding cards like Tormod's Crypt will make
sure they never see play. Why do some cards see play in Type 1 but not
Extended, even though they're legal? (It happens, but it's rare.) Because
Type 1 allows hands like two Moxen, Black Lotus, Sol Ring and Tolarian
Academy to take place, or a double Dark Ritual, giving a very nasty mana
burst very early. Knocking 26 cards out of your opponent's deck before they
have their first turn can hurt very much, and I doubt they'd even have a
useable counter in their hand as of yet.
> In Standard, the play is a little slower, but the threats are more varied.
> While certain versions of the Psychatog deck can conceivably be beaten
> by a lucky Traumatize, most decks have multiple kill methods and again
> require a better solution.
I wonder what would happen if someone used a red/blue deck, running AEther
Flash and Traumatize? Just an idle thought here..
Erich
Erich Leibrock
news:3c730...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> "Justin Sexton" <jsextonpr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > > >>
> >
>
> Traumitize is not control, it is blind, in the short term, there is very
> little difference between your graveyard and your library, ie the cards
are
> unaccessible. The slight effect is that traumatize may catch some key
cards
> thus reducing the potential of future draws. Do not be mistaken this is a
> slight effect. There is little difference on turn five between cards in
your
> graveyard and cards on the bottom of your library.
Unless you have either tutoring, drawing, or recursion ability (many decks
have at least one of these), in which case it can make a very big
difference. Against Reanimator, I agree you've likely done half the job for
your opponent - getting something useful into the graveyard. Also by turn 5,
each person has gone through about a dozen cards in their deck. By then, the
Reanimator player likely has either a Tutor or a Reanimation card in hand.
Against Threshold-based decks, you obviously have ensured your opponent has
Threshold. However, most other decks don't use the graveyard as a resource.
I have been using Trix as an example simply for simplicity - it's the only
tournament-level deck whose design I know fairly decently! :-) Anything else
(apart from MAYBE Sligh) I don't know well enough to specifically comment on
it by cards. And Trix is a good example of a deck that, when a card goes to
the graveyard, well, it might as well be removed from game, because it's
very rare for a Trix deck to have a way to get cards back! Ditto with Sligh.
Stompy may occasionally employ something like Gaea's Blessing, but I don't
think it typically does. As for other deck types - I don't know them well
enough to comment specifically :-) But I do know I have seen enough cards in
this game that I feel I can make general comments like this relatively
safely.
> > > >> In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case
of
> > > >> Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW,
you've
> been
> > > >> "decked".
> > > >
> > > >Got it. I was making the assumption that most games don't reach card
> > > >number 26.
> > >
> > > Most games don't. However, as Traumatize wants players to burn
through
> cards,
> > > to allow for a decking win, in this particular case, it can be assumed
> that the
> > > Traumatize deck is so organized.
> >
> > I'll concede this point. Note, though, that since Traumatize doesn't
> > affect board position, it's still makes it easy to be killed while
> > waiting for them to be decked.
>
> This still leaves open the question of defending yourself through your
> opponents action for the first ten turns
Which is likely to happen anyways. I doubt a deck with Traumatize in would
leave itself vulnerable to attack. Since the player is playing Blue, one can
expect counters and possibly bounce to be in the deck, and either cards like
Possessed Aven, Morphling, or Masticore, or something to speed up the
Milling process, or a second color to help obtain a kill faster. Traumatize
is not likely to be the ONLY kill mechanism in the deck. However, if I'm
running one Traum, I will likely run a second as well. With enough draw
ability (even from things like Cephalid Scout, for instance), and a couple
of Cephalid Coliseums, I can probably manage to knock your deck out
relatively quickly. And I can always use the Scout in combat if necessary.
> > > >Yup. However, since the Traumatize has not affected board position,
> > > >nor reduced the ratio of threats in the library (net, over several
> > > >games), that one card per turn can still be used to kill you. Unless
> > > >you've established total control, of course, but then _any_ kill card
> > > >would work.
> > >
> > > Traumatize isn't a kill card. It's a setup card.
>
> A set up for what, haunting echoes? The field is all blue and the setup
> costs 5 with the kill(?) costing 5 as well. I have played a gainst atype
two
> Tramatize Echoes deck with red green and was hit by turn 4 tramuatize,
turn
> echoes - and then I attacked and burnt out of my hand for the finish. The
> point being his kill mechanism still provided me enough draws to finish
the
> job
I get the feeling that the deck wasn't well designed to begin with (but then
again, I don't know who you were against, so I can't say for sure one way or
the other). But facing a single Traum/Echoes deck shouldn't be enough; it
partly depends on the design. I think a start for a Traum/Echoes deck would
be:
3 Traumatize
3 Haunting Echoes
4 Recoil
4 Lobotomy
3 Nightscape Familiar
3 Stormscape Familiar
4 Counterspell
4 Syncopate
4 Chainer's Edict
2 Phyrexian Arena
2 Shadowmage Infiltrator
24 Mana slots
This should give the deck enough control to get out of the starting gate and
hold the fort until Traum and Echoes can be played, and still keep going
afterwards. Of course, this is just something I whipped up off the top of my
head, but will probably give you a little more trouble than the one you
faced. Simply, I figure that if I have it built right, it will rip your deck
apart, have enough control to keep the board pretty clean, and still be able
to knock your life down hopefully before you do the same to me. (Of course,
as I said, it's one I whipped up off the top of my head, so I don't expect
it to work WELL, but it looks decent to me for a first draft.)
> > > Flashback and Threshold are Type 2 mechanics, so *of course* there
will
> be T2
> > > tournament-winning decks built around them.
> >
> > I guess that's a concession.
>
> No - the point is Supor Gro finished the season as Tier 1 - it likes
> threshold and doesnt need many turns to change the life counter from 20 to
> 0.
>
> PT junk was also a contender, and it has Call of the herd which is
arguably
> the best flashback card in the game
>
> Both Tier 1 both extended and both decks I think your startegy would
> struggle to beat
But it CAN beat, the question is partly a matter of design, partly the
skills of the player. Extended has many broken cards in it, so giving a
Traum/Echoes deck access to those is very painful. ( For example, replace
the Chainer's Edicts with Diabolic, the Familiars with Medallions, Arenas
with Vampiric Tutors, and Finkels with Morphlings or Masticores; you can
also add a couple more cards and reduce the mana slots a notch - perhaps to
20-22 - and add Duress. Syncopate replaced with Force of Will. Now it will
give you more trouble and just might do the trick. Of course, I don't play
much Extended, but damn I gotta start somewhere! :-) )
> > > I'd wait for a Type 1 (not Extended) "season" before making any grand
> > > pronouncements about what is and isn't tournament-worthy.
> >
> > Are you seriously proposing Traumatize as a Type 1 card? That's a
> > whole 'nother debate.
>
> No, a debate implies a two sided argument - Traumitize is not a type 1
> strategy
Though I suppose it could be done.. Tolarian Academy + Candelabra of Tawnos,
and use Braingeyser, Stroke of Genius, Traumatize, Millstone, and make sure
to add cards like Extract to remove ugly annoying things like Regrowth or
Gaea's Blessing :-)
> Traumitize does not take threats out of the game, Threats are on the board
> and most decks have multiple threats, possibly with the exception of Combo
It takes future threats out of the game typically. As I said before, most
decks are not designed to use the graveyard as a resource. And for one card,
you have now increased the capability of your deck to deal with that of your
opponent. If you have four Diabolic Edict, for instance, in your deck, you
can now in relative safety Edict nigh any creature that hits the table,
because you know there can't be much more left to work with. You (playing
blue, obviously) now can counter most threats that come out, because your
opponent has less threats to work with.
Let's assume a deck built like this: 12 creatures, 24 spells, 24 mana slots.
None of the spell slots can hurt you - they're all counters, draw, board
controls, whatever, but don't affect YOU. So the only way for your opponent
to deal damage to you is by the creatures. You have 12 counterspells in your
deck and eight cards to deal specifically with creatures (4 each of Diabolic
Edict and Masticore, perhaps). On average, by the time Traumatize is
playable, your opponent will have gone through about 20% of their deck.
Likely, one creature in play, one in hand, a few mana slots on board and in
hand, and a couple cards in the graveyard.
Now play Traumatize. If it's not countered, your opponent has likely five
creatures left in the library. Whatever counters and creature kill cards you
have left will be able to shut down whatever creatures he has. And you have
some kind of draw or tutoring ability more than likely in your deck, so
getting a counter out or Edict or whatever is more than likely. You have
still, on average, 16 ways in your library to stop his five threats (plus
don't forget you still have cards in hand). You are therefore in a much
better position to win the game by shutting down his threats and playing
your own.
This is why I think Traumatize is better than you give it credit for. It's
not a question of your opponent drawing or not drawing the threats; it's a
question of giving yourself a better ability to handle whatever threats he
has come up. In the above example, for every creature he now draws, you have
at least three cards you can draw to stop it, or about double your chances
when both your libaries were full at the start of the game. (16:5 vs 20:12)
> > > The only time I cast it "early" is if it's clear that my opponent is
> mana
> > > screwed or mana flooded. In that case, it's a calculated gamble that
> it'll
> > > amplify the mana screw or flood .
> >
> > Strongly disagree with this one. Any probs and stats experience should
> > tell you that mathematically, you're dead wrong. Even real life will
> > tell you that you just eliminated a "clump," and probably helped them
> > out considerably.
I have to agree here. You've probably sent your opponent to a spot where the
mana problem ISN'T (remember, more land is clustered together, so less is
distributed throughout the rest of the deck). If he's clumped, you've
probably got him to spells; if it's screwed, more than likely he's closer to
land now.
Erich
T. Swedish
> > >> >matchups, like Sligh or Stompy. Traumatize alone does nothing
against
> > >> >them. Versus Draino or Reanimator, it helps them along considerably.
> > >> >Versus Oath with Blessing, you've likely wasted a card completely.
See
> > >> >where I'm going?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. And as I've noted, Traumatize isn't a win by itself. If you
don't
> > >>have the followup, you simply don't cast it.
> > >
> > >This is, oddly, exactly my point. If a five mana sorcery is only good
> > >if you have other cards to go with it, then it is bad on it's own.
> > >Hence, there are better cards to play.
> >
> > Would you claim this of any other "setup" card? Buried Alive isn't a
win
> > either. You need a recursion card to make use of it.
>
> True. Buried Alive is much cheaper, however, and sets up a combo
> (Living Death) that gains card advantage and should gain significant
> board advantage. No combo with Traumatize does either.
Hehe, um, Traumatize/Living Death?
Killer in multiplayer =)
T. Swedish
Justin Sexton
<snipping, well, everything>
> Sorry, I feel it is too slow and unwieldy, great when it works but it is
> just a 'help me win bigger' card
Um, Peter? You might want to re-read a bit. I am, like you, arguing
_against_ Traumatize. John Hwang and Erich Leibrock are the ones
arguing _for_. :)
Justin
Justin Sexton
> "Justin Sexton" <jsextonpr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Erich Leibrock" <elei...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<VM7c8.42022$JZ.42...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > > "Justin Sexton" <jsextonpr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f1b6d8d0.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > Most Trix version don't, true. But elsewhere in the thread I mentioned
> > the large number of decks that do have access to the graveyard, like
> > Reanimator, or decks using Call of the Herd, Beast Attack, Squee,
> > Ichorid, etc. Those decks are helped by Traumatize.
>
> Yes and no. Squee and Reanimator may be helped or harmed, depending on what
> the opponent has in hand, in play, and in the graveyard. Here it can be a
> tossup. Call and Beast can be hurt, if you want to think about it this way:
> You've just reduced the amount of times that card can be played from twice
> to once. Instead of being able to get two 4/4 Beast tokens, you now can only
> get a single one, and the card is removed from game. A simple bounce
> spell/ability will knock off the remaining token.
The key here is to look at immediate threats (cards in hand), rather
than potential threats (cards buried in the library). Flashback cards
like Call essentially count as being in the hand when they are in the
graveyard. If you Traumatize Calls, you are helping them draw cards
they would not otherwise have. You have increased the immediate
threats, not reduced them. The immediate threats are the ones that
kill you.
> > Looking at this from the flip side, if the opposing decks have tutors,
> > then it is easier for them to access the threats that still remain in
> > the library. Probability still dictates that over time, the games that
> > eliminate all kill cards and tutors will equal the games that
> > eliminate everything else.
>
> However, do they have enough searchers to dig for what they need to kill you
> out of what they have left?
The odds say yes. Each tutor basically counts as another copy of the
kill card.
> And for those few decks that run neither
> searchers nor recursion, Traumatize is a very powerful card indeed.
No. Decks like those generally are massively redundant, like Sligh and
Stompy. Every card is a threat or a land. They will still draw more
threats.
> > Yes. So even if a single Donate remains in the deck, they can still
> > tutor for it.
>
> And I only need a single Counterspell or bounce card to get rid of it,
> instead of having to stop it three or four times.
Yeah, but you still have to _have_ the Counterspell. That was true
before you tapped five mana on your turn, thus making it harder to use
that Counterspell.
> > > > > >Regarding your Trix example above, the odds of burying a
> > > > > >Donate is the same as topdecking one for your opponent, by
> > > > > >cutting straight to it. If so, it was in a place that he _wouldn't
> > > > > >have drawn to_, had you not played Traumatize or Cutter.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, Traumatize does change the game state, and you can see
> whether
> any
> > > > > Donates were in the top half of the library. So that is useful.
> > > >
> > > > So can your opponent. Just as useful for them.
> > >
> > > Yes, but likely also more psychologically painful, because if it
> resolves,
> > > they know they have access to a lot less threats than before.
> >
> > There is that. I, however, would not be psyched out, because I beleive
> > TRaumatize to be inferior, and my play testing has confirmed that for
> > me. :)
>
> Again, it depends on what you're facing, and what you're playing. It's not
> always a question of being psyched out or not, it's a question on whether
> you are able to continue producing enough threats to kill me off. With
> likely half of your remaining threats now in your graveyard, do you have
> enough to continue on?
Probably. And what of the threats on the board that you still haven't
dealt with?
> > >
> > > > Okay, let's look at some scenarios:
> > > >
> > > > 1. All Donates are in the top of the library.
> > > >
> > > > Playing Cutter moves them all to the bottom of the library, where
> > > > tutors can get them.
> > > > Playing Traumatize moves them all to the graveyard, where recursion
> > > > can get them.
> > > >
> > > > Draw
> > >
> > > I disagree. Most search-based cards can access cards in the library.
> Only a
> > > relative few can get them from the graveyard. Edge goes to Traumatize if
> you
> > > are trying to remove opponent's threat ability.
> >
> > True for Trix. Untrue for many other decks. Draw.
>
> True for not only Trix but many other decks as well - any that rely on only
> a few cards to deliver win conditions. I believe Brian Weissman's original
> "The Deck" 's only real to win was a couple of Serra Angels. If both of
> those hit the grave, game over.
And Regrowth. And Feldon's Cane. and Yawgmoth's Will is in The Deck
now. That's five cards you have to hit. Now what?
> > > > 2. All Donates are in the bottom of the library.
> > > >
> > > > Playing Cutter moves them all to top of the library.
> > > > Playing Traumatize moves them all to the top of the library.
> > > >
> > > > Draw
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > > 3. The Donates are mixes in the library.
> > > >
> > > > Playing Cutter moves them around the library.
> > > > Playing Traumatize moves some to the graveyard, and some to the top of
> > > > the library.
> > > >
> > > > Cutter is better, as only tutors can help.
> > >
> > You're forgetting Ichorid, Squee, Hammer, all the flashback cards
> > (with more coming in Judgement) and giving decks Threshold. And
> > speaking of Blessing, note that it effectively counters Traumatize and
> > then some.
>
> However, realistically there aren't many decks (out of all of them) that I
> see where Flashback and Threshold make any real difference (would YOU play
> Ancestral Tribute, or Kamahl's Sledge?). A Winter Orb deck can still shut
> down a Draino deck, for instance. Trauming Hammer means that you have
> generally two more turns before your opponent can use it on you (once to
> return it, once to play it). With Ichorid I've stopped one use of it, and
> now make him eat his graveyard to put it back into play. The only card I'd
> really care about is Squee. Nether Spirit won't likely be making any return
> appearances either.
But in all these cases, you are giving your opponent free draws by
putting cards into the graveyard that he can recur at will. Even if it
takes them a couple turns to use them, they were all free, extra cards
that they wouldn't have seen till later, and would have had to spend a
draw on.
> Plus, by the time you can cast Traumatize, your opponent likely has
> Threshold anyways.
Potentially. Several decks, however, use creatures like Werebear
anyway, and aren't necessarily trying to get Threshold by turn five.
Giving it to them just magnfies the threats on the board.
> > > > Using Traumatize in the above cases gives both players knowledge of
> > > > where the Donates are, which also seems even to me.
> > > >
> > > > In what way does Traumatize have an advantage over Cutter, aside from
> > > > the _possibility_ of a win?
> > >
> > > I suggest the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Better idea of opponent's deck composition, while revealing very
> little
> > > about your own; and
> >
> > This is true, however, in high-level Magic, you should be able to
> > write down a fairly accurate decklist for your opponent within five
> > turns, before Traunmatize would even be cast.
>
> Possibly, but that depends on what your opponent has played thus far. If you
> play:
>
> T1. Swamp, Duress
> T2. Swamp, Sinkhole
> T3. Swamp, Phyrexian Arena
> T4. Swamp, Phyrexian Negator
> T5. Sol Ring, Sengir Vampire
>
> What do I know about your deck? Are you playing Land Destruction, Discard, a
> black Beatdown deck, or what? I know that chances are you have four each of
> four of your cards, with Sol Ring being restricted and the Arena may be
> anywhere from one to four. Is Duress or Sinkhole key to the deck? Or are
> they both just cheap and efficient and designed to throw me off the scent?
You're playing an unusual black control deck. I can extrapolate the
majority of your deck from there. With Sinkhole and Sol Ring, however,
you're arguing for Type 1. Traumatize is simply bad in T1, with
Regrowth, Recall, Yawgmoth's Will, Nostalgic Dreams, Holistic Widsom,
etc. running around.
> > > 2. Threat cards are placed in opponent's graveyard, where cards are
> harder
> > > to retrieve than if still in the library.
> >
> > Except that the ratio of threats is unchanged, generally speaking. If
> > the game is not decided by decking (and really, how often does that
> > happen?) then the _number_ of threats is irrelevant. The ratio is all
> > that matters, and Traumatize does not change that in the long run.
>
> I disagree. The ratio of what remains in your deck is more important.
??? That's what I said. The ratio of threats to non-threats is more
important than the number of total threats.
> Sure,
> on average, you will likely make your opponent lose twenty-ish cards (the
> remaining being a combination of what you started with and what you drew),
> but the composition of those twenty-ish cards is very important. What if
> you're playing a Threshold deck, and most of your important cards that are
> based on Threshold are now in the graveyard?
Back to probabilities. The odds of that happening are the same as the
odds of loading their deck with threats. Net gain over several games
(i.e., one tournament): Zero. Zilch. Nada.
> Now you have to think "OK, what
> do I have left to work with? Out of my four Mystic Enforcers, two just got
> milled, and one was beat before Threshold hit. Hmmm.. looking at my
> graveyard, I will need to draw {set of cards} if I am going to be able to
> draw it relatively quickly. What else do I have to work with now?"
>
> Traumatize, if successfully played,
Caveat: "successfully played" means "got lucky." There is no skill
involved in milling threats, only blind luck which _will_ even out in
the long run.
> can force your opponent to alter playing
> strategy based on what he has left to draw. It can also be looked at as a
> pre-emptive super-counter, similar to Duress (except that it takes the cards
> from the library instead of hand)
And that is a far bigger difference than you seem to realize.
> , with the additional effect that it can
> "counter" lands as well. I do agree, however, that its usefulness is partly
> dependent on the deck you're facing. I also agree, however, that a deck with
> Traumatize in it typically has a specific use for it in mind (such as
> Echoes, Millstone, or a quick way for yourself to achieve Threshold).
>
> > > This, added to the fact that, as already mentioned, a secondary win
> > > condition is more likely, makes me prefer Traumatize much more over
> Cutter.
> >
> > As is your right. Dear Lord, this thread is getting long. I absolutely
> > love it. :)
>
> As do I :-) Who'da thunk that this card would inspire this much debate? :-)
>
> Incidentally, I understand your position; I just feel that it's better than
> you're giving it credit for :-)
And I understand yours. Believe it or not, I love the card and want
desperately to make it work. It's just that after hours and hours of
testing, these are my results, and I want to save others the effort
that I spent.
Justin
John Hwang
>"Izzatrix" <lewis.b....@lmco.com> wrote ...
>> The discussion so far seems to limit the discussion of the
>> merit of Traumatize as a single card in an Extended
>> environment. In that card
>
>At this point, pretty much. We're looking at Traumatize in a
>tournament setting in general.
Yup. Normal "Constructed" play.
>Extended came up because I used Trix as an example, and
>Trix is typically ony run in Extended.
Actually, Trix is now a T1 deck, as all of its black bits have been banned in
Extended. Now it's simply Trick.
>> pool, it is pretty clear from other cards that are not in
>> vogue that Traumatize is just too slow. For example,
>> Jesters' Cap has not been popular in extended play for a
>> long time. For all practical purposes, JC is a 6cc card to
>> remove 3 specific threats from an opposing deck.
>
>Also playable by turn four. And it tells you the exact
>composition of your opponent's deck, barring what was in
>your opponent's hand.
Yup. JC isn't an Extended card, but it might make an OK Type 1 card -- Cap
works best against 1's, i.e. Restricted cards. It's not as helpful against
decks built on 4's.
>> No deck, even Donate is so narrow anymore that the
>> removal of 3 cards is going to cripple it.
>Unless it only runs three Donates (which is quite possible).
I think this was only in the very earliest builds of Trix.
>Of course, milling has almost always been very cheap and
>"a card or two at a time" sort of thing.
Yup.
>For example, the concept-based Millstone. Each time you
>pay two mana and tap it, it puts two cards from your
>opponent's library into the graveyard. Two cards at a time is
>NOT going to do very much.
Hence, Grindstone, which is slightly better.
>However, TWENTY cards in one shot can make a much
>bigger impact.
Yup. Now back with Memory Jar and Windfall...
If they don't have draw replacement, they're done.
>Ten Millstone activations (requiring a minimum expenditure
>of 22 mana - this is one Millstone, but over 10 turns; less
>turns increases the amount of mana required, because
>you'll need more Millstones to do this) would be required
>to get the same effect. The only cost-efficient way I know
> of to have a chance to do this (mill for 20 in one shot) would
>be to use Grindstone.
Statistically impossible, as any land breaks the grind. :)
>That's part of the reason why milling never caught on
>(though sometimes Millstone is added as an extra victory
>option, "just in case").
Still too slow, IMO.
>Traumatize can, IMO, be a good card for Type 1, partly
>becuase there's obscene ways to get fast mana. Adding
>cards like Tormod's Crypt will make sure they never see
>play.
Also, due to the presence of Restricted cards. If you get Restricted cards
into the graveyard, they tend not to appear in future draws. :)
>Knocking 26 cards out of your opponent's deck
>before they have their first turn can hurt very much, and I
>doubt they'd even have a useable counter in their hand as of
>yet.
Force of Will. :)
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
>> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton)
>> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
>> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote ...
>> >> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >> >> >johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote...
>> >> >> >> jsextonpr...@lycos.com (Justin Sexton) wrote:
>> >> Yes. And as I've noted, Traumatize isn't a win by itself. If you don't
>> >>have the followup, you simply don't cast it.
>> >
>> >This is, oddly, exactly my point. If a five mana sorcery is only good
>> >if you have other cards to go with it, then it is bad on it's own.
>> >Hence, there are better cards to play.
>>
>> Would you claim this of any other "setup" card? Buried Alive isn't a win
>> either. You need a recursion card to make use of it.
>
>True. Buried Alive is much cheaper,
Not really. It's only 2 mana.
>however, and sets up a combo
>(Living Death) that gains card advantage and should gain significant
>board advantage. No combo with Traumatize does either.
Huh? If I wait just 2 turns, I dump a *lot* more creature cards into the
graveyard, so Living Death brings back 10+ creatures instead of 3. That is
board advantage.
>> Heck, Wheel of Fortune and Memory Jar are both auto-loss if you
>> have 6 or fewer cards in library, yet most people consider them to be so
>> powerful they require Restriction in Type 1 play.
>
>Wheel of Fortune gains card advantage when used properly. Same with
>Jar, altough it's usually used only in a pure combo deck.
Right. They need to be used properly. Which is why, like Traumatize, you
don't just throw them in a deck.
>> >Sure. However, that's back to the same old argument. It's just as
>> >likely that you've stocked his graveyard with all his critters, and he
>> >can reanimate freely. In the long run, you've reached no advantage.
>>
>> There is *no* reason to expect individual games to conform to long-term
>> statistics. Losing access to half of my search and recursion is a bad
>> thing against a control deck.
>
>But in order to judge a cards worthiness, you have to look at it's
>effective ness over many, many games. Sure, I can conceive a game in
>which Sorrow's Path was a game winner. It may even happen once in a
>while. It's not a good argument for it's overall effectiveness. Since
>Traumatize is a blind mill effect, the times where it hits good cards
>will equal the times it hits bad cards, over time.
Right. But as I'm planning to follow up with Echoes or Crypt, I'd consider it
a good card, indeed.
>> >Yes. And assuming that the other three are distributed randomly, then
>> >over the long haul, there is zero net difference.
>>
>> I think there's a minor net difference, and it's all in taking the
>> initiative and controlling things.
>
>But you can't know what you're controlling. It's a blind mill.
Given that I've just seen half of my opponent's library, I think I have a good
idea of what needs controlling and what doesn't. It's not a mill for 2 or 4.
It's a mill for 20+.
>> >> In the case of Cutter, you can draw card #26, whereas in the case of
>> >> Traumatize, card #26 is the first card in the graveyard. IOW, you've
>> >> been "decked".
>> >
>> >Got it. I was making the assumption that most games don't reach card
>> >number 26.
>>
>> Most games don't. However, as Traumatize wants players to burn through
>>cards, to allow for a decking win, in this particular case, it can be assumed
>> that the Traumatize deck is so organized.
>
>I'll concede this point. Note, though, that since Traumatize doesn't
>affect board position, it's still makes it easy to be killed while
>waiting for them to be decked.
Yup. Hence the need for a follow-up, ideally Echoes. The point is that,
barring a Cane or Blessing, I've just cut 20+ turns off the "wait", 20+ turns
which I can be killed.
>> >Disagree. Many decks in both Standard and Extended want threshold very
>> >badly, and every card I mentioned above is both effiecient and brutal.
>> >All have appeared in tournament winning decks.
>>
>> Flashback and Threshold are Type 2 mechanics, so *of course* there will be
>> T2 tournament-winning decks built around them.
>
>I guess that's a concession.
Yup. :)
>> I'd wait for a Type 1 (not Extended) "season" before making any grand
>> pronouncements about what is and isn't tournament-worthy.
>
>Are you seriously proposing Traumatize as a Type 1 card? That's a
>whole 'nother debate.
IMO, T1 is where we *really* see whether cards are good. Extended is a mess,
due to the idiocy surrounding the various responses to Trix/Trick, and the
general conceptual flaws behind the format -- c'mon... Black without Dark
Ritual?
>> >> Trix/Trick isn't that counter-heavy. It's got 2 blocks of combo, with a
>> >> couple blocks of card drawing and tutor. A real counter deck easily
>> >> outguns Trix/Trick. Trix/Trick countering Traumatize is like permission
>> >> countering Illusions -- right answer, wrong timing and target...
>> >
>> >If it shouldn't be countered, then it isn't much of a threat to them.
>> >QED.
>>
>> Traumatize is like a tutor. You don't counter the tutor -- you counter the
>> *threat*.
>>
>> And I don't think I've ever claimed Traumatize is a threat per-se. I've
>> always looked at it as setup. So !QED.
>
>Tutors _get_ the follow up. Traumatize sits useless in your hand until
>you draw it's follow-up. Not what I want for five mana.
As it costs 5 mana, you should have drawn (or tutored for) the follow-up before
casting it.
>> Then you make sure that you've got your follow-up primed and protected
>> before you cast your setup.
>
>Er. Where is all this mana coming from, that you can tap five on your
>turn and still have multiple counter backup?
Doesn't need to be multiple. But if for an early (turn 5) Traumatize, I can
backup with Force of Will, any blue card, and Tormod's Crypt. If I'm playing
Academy and Medallion, or Type 1, it could be even sooner.
>> >Well, my focus was on Traumatize's merits on it's own. For the amount
>> >of mana you have to spend main phase for such a random effect,
>> >wouldn't you rather have something that was strong no matter what the
>> >rest of your draw was?
>>
>> Depends entirely on the deck. Decks aren't cards. They're clusters of
>> things which work together. Traumatize works in some decks and not
>> others.
>>
>> I maindeck one in my deckripper precisely because I can combo it with
>> Crypt and Echoes and my win condition revolves around taking my
>> opponents threats OOG. In that deck, it's a good card and worth playing.
>> If I draw it, I'll wait until it's time to cast it.
>>
>> The only time I cast it "early" is if it's clear that my opponent is mana
>> screwed or mana flooded. In that case, it's a calculated gamble that it'll
>> amplify the mana screw or flood .
>
>Strongly disagree with this one. Any probs and stats experience should
>tell you that mathematically, you're dead wrong. Even real life will
>tell you that you just eliminated a "clump," and probably helped them
>out considerably.
Assume opponent is mana screwed. If this is the case, he's currently in a
clump of non-land. So probability says that the remainder of his deck has a
lot more land than it should. Pretending that it's semi-uniform, taking half
of it away means I pull more land than I usually would. Regardless, being
mana-screwed at the moment, with a poor board position, he's in no position to
capitalize on what I'm doing.
Turn 5, opponent mana screwed, seen 12 cards, but only 3 land out of 24 total.
That leaves 21 land in the remaining 48 cards. If those remaining land are
random/uniform, Traumatize should dump 10+ land (on average) into the
graveyard, leaving him with 10 land out of 24 cards. Yeah, he'll be mana-rich,
later, but as above, his board position sucks and I'm in control.
Sometimes I'll get lucky and pull more than 10 land, say 13 land out of the 24.
In this case, he has only 8 land remaining in the library. In this case, his
future mana rate is 33% instead of a nominal 40%, and he'll never see more than
11 total.
Kaos
Sexton) wrote:
>> Would you claim this of any other "setup" card? Buried Alive isn't a win
>> either. You need a recursion card to make use of it.
>
>True. Buried Alive is much cheaper, however, and sets up a combo
>(Living Death) that gains card advantage and should gain significant
>board advantage. No combo with Traumatize does either.
Traumatize(self) + Living death :p
Does both, though it's much more expensive.
Traumatize + Haunting Echoes does set up a quality-advantage position
for future draws, in a reverse Gaea's Blessing type of effect. It's
more difficult (costs you two cards while Blessing costs none, very
expensive,) but also very brutal - it's likely to net you a
soft-lock. And Echos *can* be used on it's own (though not nearly as
effectively, except perhaps against Threshold decks.)
Then again, Discard combos with Echos almost as well and does help
control the board.
>> There is *no* reason to expect individual games to conform to long-term
>> statistics. Losing access to half of my search and recursion is a bad thing
>> against a control deck.
That only becomes relevant if you're in serious danger of getting
decked. As for individual games, of course they won't conform to
long-term statistics; after all, people do win the lottery despite the
odds against it.
Traumatize has better odds than the lottery, but it's the same concept
- you're gambling. You may win the individual game because of it, but
when you look at the combined results of many individual games it
balances out.
>> Most games don't. However, as Traumatize wants players to burn through cards,
>> to allow for a decking win, in this particular case, it can be assumed that the
>> Traumatize deck is so organized.
>
>I'll concede this point. Note, though, that since Traumatize doesn't
>affect board position, it's still makes it easy to be killed while
>waiting for them to be decked.
That's true of most (all?) decking mechanisms; Laquatas makes a small
contribution to board position while Howling Mine makes a (typically)
balanced contribution to both players, but the rest do nothing.
>> I'd wait for a Type 1 (not Extended) "season" before making any grand
>> pronouncements about what is and isn't tournament-worthy.
>
>Are you seriously proposing Traumatize as a Type 1 card? That's a
>whole 'nother debate.
Is there *any* Type 1 deck that doesn't make use of recursion?
(Question two: is Gaea's Blessing T1 caliber? If so, Traumatize is
*completely* useless in that environment.)
Kaos
wrote:
>Traumitize is not control, it is blind, in the short term, there is very
>little difference between your graveyard and your library, ie the cards are
>unaccessible. The slight effect is that traumatize may catch some key cards
>thus reducing the potential of future draws. Do not be mistaken this is a
>slight effect. There is little difference on turn five between cards in your
>graveyard and cards on the bottom of your library.
Aye. I think this point gets muffled by the sheer quantity of mill
that Traumatize does.
>> I'll concede this point. Note, though, that since Traumatize doesn't
>> affect board position, it's still makes it easy to be killed while
>> waiting for them to be decked.
>
>This still leaves open the question of defending yourself through your
>opponents action for the first ten turns
That question is there regardless. A good control deck will have
solutions for that; and as Justin said, once you've got control any
kill will do.
Traumatize has the advantage of being a semipassive kill - play it
once, and all you have to worry about is surviving; you can even lose
control of the board, so long as it isn't too drastic, and still win.
The disadvantage it has against other kill methods is that it doesn't
really help you maintain control. Things like Morphling will, since
they also have defensive value.