Necro the idiots alternative
OseiB
Hey you GUYYYYYYYSSSSS
For all of you misinformed folks out there ... Necropotence is a scrub
deck. Made for unimaginative mockers of someone who had success with it.
The very idea of a deck that had no reliable method of removing passive
threats is preposterous. Recently there has corruption in the magic
environment everyone and there mother and their mothers dog is jumping on
the necro bandwagon. But this is a good thing. All of you former
Blue/White players who put away your decks in fear as the Necropotence
discard decks raped your hand of it's cards and their un-StP-able
creatures slapped you around for many pumpable points of damage. Fear not.
Start Karma!
Why not? A GOOD UW deck has no fear from almost anything other than necrop
so the two cards won't hurt against anyone else.
Start Control Magic.
Black can't get rid of black creatures it's one of its many flaws.
Be Aggressive.
Against Necro and discard UWs attempts to setup and hold a position are
often disrupted by the hymn (truly a broken card but why whine, deal with
it) and the spectre so the UW player must shift gears. Try to kill the
opponent with his creatures or yours, don't stall, play them as if you
were playing an aggressive deck and you will find that you can match them
card for card and more if you have enough counters.
Be flexible.
If you are playing in a Necropotence filled environment then you know that
there should be no one card that when lost destroys your deck.
Be Strong.
Many good UW players find themselves losing toi Necro in later rounds as
opposed to earlier rounds. I don't think that it has very much to do with
the players skill as discard/disruption deck rely heavily on luck, but
rather the fact the a UW deck is not a brainless deck. It requires an
clear understanding of your purpose, your deck construction, your
opponents deck type, the cards in your graveyard, and more. The UW player
must consider every play and counterplay not just go balls out and hymn
till you run out. The UW white player must have the mental stamina to deal
with a long tournament where he will have to make these decisions every
round.
Be Prepared.
The best way for a UW player to understand other decks and therefore to
understand how to build his deck to defeat them is to play with the other
decks. Get a good(hah) necro deck and play with the slimy cards. See the
glee they feel as they hymn someone and pray not to get land. Then you
will understand that they will always play a knight rather than hymn late
in the game and hymn rather than play a knight early in the game. So if
they play a knight early he doesn't have the hymn.
UW is still the best color combination in Magic. Play it, Love it, Win
with it.
Oh yeah, deflect those hymns back at him (joke) or play with Felwar stones
and mind warp him (joke 2x) or control his hyppie and rape HIS hand, but
whatever you do turn the table on discard and watch them cry.
Best of Luck and may WoTC make many new counters,
Hashim Bello
# 135 DCI (WoTC is still behind on theri numbers)
Hashim Bello - The first to die is the least miserable
Alan D Kohler
In article <4q9f2m$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, os...@aol.com says...
>
>Hey you GUYYYYYYYSSSSS
Hi
>For all of you misinformed folks out there ... Necropotence is a scrub
>deck. Made for unimaginative mockers of someone who had success with it.
Or those like me who happened to just like black in general before
necropotence was a gleam in R&D's eye. But seriously, I can think of other
black-lovers who just added necro to their existing decks instead of
conforming to the formulaic decks you see here on the net - and you know
what - they really aren't all that different. Fact is that necro just
incorporates many tried and true methods many black players have known for a
long time and added the card drawing power of the necro.
>The very idea of a deck that had no reliable method of removing passive
>threats is preposterous.
It's black - it relies on discard for "aggressive pre-emptive threat
removal".
> All of you former
>Blue/White players who put away your decks in fear as the Necropotence
>discard decks raped your hand of it's cards and their un-StP-able
>creatures slapped you around for many pumpable points of damage. Fear not.
>Start Karma!
>Why not? A GOOD UW deck has no fear from almost anything other than necrop
>so the two cards won't hurt against anyone else.
Karma's not bad, but gloom usually pre-empts it. U/W can work if you pack
sleights to handle the glooms.
At least you didn't say "Drought" - that 2 white upkeep is too unreliable,
and slows you down nearly as much as it does the necro player.
>Start Control Magic.
>Black can't get rid of black creatures it's one of its many flaws.
This works, I'll admit. I started sideboarding fallen angels in my necro
deck for the specific purpose of fighting control magic.
>Be Aggressive.
>Against Necro and discard UWs attempts to setup and hold a position are
>often disrupted by the hymn (truly a broken card but why whine,
Too late...
> deal with it)
That's for you, Chris
>and the spectre so the UW player must shift gears. Try to kill the
>opponent with his creatures or yours, don't stall, play them as if you
>were playing an aggressive deck and you will find that you can match them
>card for card and more if you have enough counters.
Before alliances, I would say NOT, but now, I think diminishing returns may
give blue the card-drawing clout it needs to tassle with necro.
>Be flexible.
Blue player bywords
>If you are playing in a Necropotence filled environment then you know that
>there should be no one card that when lost destroys your deck.
(Snip)
>Be Prepared.
>glee they feel as they hymn someone and pray not to get land. Then you
>will understand that they will always play a knight rather than hymn late
>in the game and hymn rather than play a knight early in the game.
Not always true - if you have just played or he expects you would play a
Diminishing Returns, I'd wait to make sure that my necro maintains a card
advantage, and you don't get a card advantage.
--
Alan D Kohler
hwk...@poky.srv.net
"Efficiency is merely applied laziness." - me
Alan Cade
os...@aol.com (OseiB) wrote:
>Hey you GUYYYYYYYSSSSS
>
>For all of you misinformed folks out there ... Necropotence is a scrub
>deck. Made for unimaginative mockers of someone who had success with it.
>environment everyone and there mother and their mothers dog is jumping on
>Blue/White players who put away your decks in fear as the Necropotence
>discard decks raped your hand of it's cards and their un-StP-able
>creatures slapped you around for many pumpable points of damage. Fear not.
Necro isn't just a scrub deck for unimaginative mockers of successful
players. It is also the same very focused deck which many of the top
ranked players are winning with. Why? Because it's like
Channel/Braingeyser... every turn.
>Start Karma!
>Why not? A GOOD UW deck has no fear from almost anything other than necrop
>so the two cards won't hurt against anyone else.
>
>Start Control Magic.
>Black can't get rid of black creatures it's one of its many flaws.
>
>Be Aggressive.
>Against Necro and discard UWs attempts to setup and hold a position are
>often disrupted by the hymn (truly a broken card but why whine, deal with
>it) and the spectre so the UW player must shift gears. Try to kill the
>opponent with his creatures or yours, don't stall, play them as if you
>were playing an aggressive deck and you will find that you can match them
>card for card and more if you have enough counters.
>
>Be flexible.
>If you are playing in a Necropotence filled environment then you know that
>there should be no one card that when lost destroys your deck.
>
>Be Strong.
>Many good UW players find themselves losing toi Necro in later rounds as
>opposed to earlier rounds. I don't think that it has very much to do with
>the players skill as discard/disruption deck rely heavily on luck, but
>rather the fact the a UW deck is not a brainless deck. It requires an
>clear understanding of your purpose, your deck construction, your
>opponents deck type, the cards in your graveyard, and more. The UW player
>must consider every play and counterplay not just go balls out and hymn
>till you run out. The UW white player must have the mental stamina to deal
>with a long tournament where he will have to make these decisions every
>round.
>
>Be Prepared.
>The best way for a UW player to understand other decks and therefore to
>understand how to build his deck to defeat them is to play with the other
>decks. Get a good(hah) necro deck and play with the slimy cards. See the
>glee they feel as they hymn someone and pray not to get land. Then you
>will understand that they will always play a knight rather than hymn late
>in the game and hymn rather than play a knight early in the game. So if
>they play a knight early he doesn't have the hymn.
>
>UW is still the best color combination in Magic. Play it, Love it, Win
>with it.
So that's what it's really about- you're one of those Weissman clones!!!!
Cool. Me too, at least in Type 1 anyways. In Type 2, I still refuse to
play Necro, because I guess I'm just not lucky enough to win with it.
>
>Oh yeah, deflect those hymns back at him (joke) or play with Felwar stones
>and mind warp him (joke 2x) or control his hyppie and rape HIS hand, but
>whatever you do turn the table on discard and watch them cry.
Back when I played Blue/White in Type 2, I actually Deflected a few Hymns,
and boy was it fun to watch them go, "Okay, which one's do I lose?" And I
get to say, "Pick them yourself, you're the one doing the Hymning." ;)
Then they get mad when they get a good Hymn (for me). ;)
>Best of Luck and may WoTC make many new counters,
>
>Hashim Bello
># 135 DCI (WoTC is still behind on theri numbers)
>Hashim Bello - The first to die is the least miserable
-Chris Cade
#254 DC Type 2 Rankings (WOTC is EXTREMELY behind on their numbers.)
"Victim's, aren't we all?"
Alan Cade
os...@aol.com (OseiB) wrote:
>HI I thought that I should follow up on my orioginal post. Just because
>many of the "best" players choose to utilize a deck does not mean that the
>deck is superior. A strong player tries to capitalize on the random
>element of MTG by utilizing a deck that punishes the opponnent most via
>the random factor. The skill involved in playing a Necro deck is no less
>that the skill in a Control deck except that the bandwidth of the skill is
>minimized.
Not necessarily so. Ranodmness isn't what wins- you don't see people
playing with Mana Clash and Game of Chaos. Random discard is what they're
after- because after all, if I can't cast my spells, how am I ever going
to beat Necro? Right? The NecroDeck does take great skill to play
*correctly*, but it doesn't take great skill to win with. I know, because
I play against Necro players all the time, and much of the time, they
aren't very skilled. I can justify this statement by saying that I have
had *many* situations where Necro players forgot to attack when they could
have done so quite easily. Granted, I have also played some exceptional
Necro players. Don't get me wrong here, Necro takes skill to play
correctly, but not much skill to win with. Perhaps sideboarding is the
greatest skill required to win with Necro... perhaps.
>
>Please undestand that I am not like many of the whiners out there. I do
>not hate Necropotence (probably the best type II card drawing engine there
>currently is with the exception of browse now) nor do I hate those people
>who choose to play Necropotence. I merely feel that they generally fall
>into a class of people who enjoy jumping on and riding the bandwagon. I do
>not!
I love Necropotence, I just refuse to play a NecroDeck, and I do not hate
Necro players myself. In fact, many of my friends play NecroDecks. Also,
I do not think Browse is a better card drawing engine than Necropotence,
not by a long shot.
>I am in no way a Weissman clone. I hate Serra Angels, in fact I think that
>creatures in general suck. But the control aspect of UW is what makes that
>game chess-like as opposed to the luck factor in playing red or black.
>Every card in my deck is a decision, anticipating (or trying to
>anticipate) all possible outcomes of each decision. I think that
>announcing yourself to the newsgroup pretty much puts you in the same
>bracket as the Necro players and your comment about why you don't play
>Necro in type two substantiates that. But your thoughts are wrong. Luck is
>fickle she comes and goes as she pleases my college nickname was Jinx and
>in magic I embody bad luck. But if you are playing a deck that revolves
>around luck the way Necro does then you will eventually capitalize on the
>element. If you like Necro and that was your only reason not to play it,
>go back to playing it (another victim for me)
I was kidding about the Weissman clone thing- just a bit of sarcasm. I
wrote that because it seems that any time anyone mentions a blue/white
control deck, they are automatically called Weissman clones....
I wouldn't want to break tradition now would I? ;)
-Chris Cade
#254 DC Type 2 Rankings
"Victim's, aren't we all?"
OseiB
HI I thought that I should follow up on my orioginal post. Just because
many of the "best" players choose to utilize a deck does not mean that the
deck is superior. A strong player tries to capitalize on the random
element of MTG by utilizing a deck that punishes the opponnent most via
the random factor. The skill involved in playing a Necro deck is no less
that the skill in a Control deck except that the bandwidth of the skill is
minimized.
Please undestand that I am not like many of the whiners out there. I do
not hate Necropotence (probably the best type II card drawing engine there
currently is with the exception of browse now) nor do I hate those people
who choose to play Necropotence. I merely feel that they generally fall
into a class of people who enjoy jumping on and riding the bandwagon. I do
not!
I am in no way a Weissman clone. I hate Serra Angels, in fact I think that
creatures in general suck. But the control aspect of UW is what makes that
game chess-like as opposed to the luck factor in playing red or black.
Every card in my deck is a decision, anticipating (or trying to
anticipate) all possible outcomes of each decision. I think that
announcing yourself to the newsgroup pretty much puts you in the same
bracket as the Necro players and your comment about why you don't play
Necro in type two substantiates that. But your thoughts are wrong. Luck is
fickle she comes and goes as she pleases my college nickname was Jinx and
in magic I embody bad luck. But if you are playing a deck that revolves
around luck the way Necro does then you will eventually capitalize on the
element. If you like Necro and that was your only reason not to play it,
go back to playing it (another victim for me)
Peace, Love, and Hasppiness
Hashim Bello, The Sophmore
NoLuv4uHo6
>I was kidding about the Weissman clone thing- just a bit of sarcasm. I
>wrote that because it seems that any time anyone mentions a blue/white
>control deck, they are automatically called Weissman clones....
>I wouldn't want to break tradition now would I? ;)
Yeah, no shit. I was playing a type 2 U/W weenie w/ 2 Controls and 4
power sinks and 2 different people accused me of having a Weissman clone.
What the hell. Not even CLOSE!!!
Anywho, I think Necro has to be one of the best decks out there right
now, especially since Land Tax is restricted. I look forward to putting
in 4 Icequakes to complement my Strips. I wish they would take out FE not
just because I don't like Hyms but I HATE finding cards to put into a Pro
tourny Decks...I've hade it up to here w/ ebon Stongholds. Also in
response to the Karma in the main deck...I have gloom in my main deck
because I am only afraid of White. Oh well thats my small thoughtless
ideas.
Proth51146
Although I understand both standpoints, I disagree entirely with both
opinions. As Chris wrote, "randomness is not what wins games...". While
this is true, he later writes that random discard and effective drawing
engines, hence card advantage, do win games. Hashim in turn posted, "I
embody...bad luck," but he still managed to qualify for PT3 indicating
that one doesn't need luck to win. Both are mistaken.
Card advantage, playing skill, or even blind luck are all helpful in
magic, but they do not win games. Ghazban Ogres win games (and sometimes
Gargantuan gorillas). ;)
-Oliver Rothschild
#1 DC rankings (as soon as DC catches up on their numbers) :)
OseiB
Oliver if you have anything intelligent to say. I'll tell you.
You sleep with Luck!
Hashim
Alan Cade
proth...@aol.com (Proth51146) wrote:
>Although I understand both standpoints, I disagree entirely with both
>opinions. As Chris wrote, "randomness is not what wins games...". While
>this is true, he later writes that random discard and effective drawing
>engines, hence card advantage, do win games. Hashim in turn posted, "I
>embody...bad luck," but he still managed to qualify for PT3 indicating
>that one doesn't need luck to win. Both are mistaken.
Yes, I am very mistaken. For some odd reason, I was under the impression
that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins. I also seemed to
think that he who has few cards, can rarely deal with an opponent who has
seven cards every turn, and still plays two or more cards each turn. Yes,
I must have been mistaken to think those things, I mean come on, I was
only beaten at Mana Fest in 5 of 6 games against two Necro players this
weekend by *one* Hymn each game... always pulling my key cards. Usually
NecroDecks don't pull the key cards in my hand I need to survive, but they
did this weekend. Both of my opponents told me that their first and
second turn Hymns were the *only* reason they won a few of those games
against me. I had the exact tools to beat my opponents, and they got
Hymned from my hand.
>Card advantage, playing skill, or even blind luck are all helpful in
>magic, but they do not win games. Ghazban Ogres win games (and sometimes
>Gargantuan gorillas). ;)
Yeah, and in Type 1, so does mana burn. What's your point?
>-Oliver Rothschild
>#1 DC rankings (as soon as DC catches up on their numbers) :)
-Chris Cade
Daniel Brickwell
Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net says...
>Yes, I am very mistaken. For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins. I also seemed to
>think that he who has few cards, can rarely deal with an opponent who has
>seven cards every turn, and still plays two or more cards each turn. Yes,
>I must have been mistaken to think those things.
No you were not. Your mistake is to think that necro always wins that way.
There are often times when you can't necro, can't get that needed black mana
and simply die to an ernham, because disks are so f****** slow. Then there
are the times when its a real Slugfest and you win by decking the opponent.
Infact, I even decked a Red/Green Ernham Burnem once. There are comebacks
from 1 life and there are times when you get bolted to death at 9 life the
round before the drain life.
Playing necro is not a stereotype when you are a good player it is just the
bad players with the copied decks and their dark ritual hymn first round etc
which spoil the necro players reputation. Strangely though these guys never
make it to the top somehow. When I read the tourney reports I still recognize
a lot of names and as long as that keeps happening I refuse to believe that
playing necro is only luck and a stereotype.
> I mean come on, I was
>only beaten at Mana Fest in 5 of 6 games against two Necro players this
>weekend by *one* Hymn each game... always pulling my key cards. Usually
>NecroDecks don't pull the key cards in my hand I need to survive, but they
>did this weekend. Both of my opponents told me that their first and
>second turn Hymns were the *only* reason they won a few of those games
>against me. I had the exact tools to beat my opponents, and they got
>Hymned from my hand.
>
I am sure, they say that to all the guys they beat. Hey, I would too, as
everybody plays Necro, it is better to hide in the masses and say your
victory was due to Hymns then to say "I tested this deck for 3 months and I
knew what you were going to sideboard anyway and perhaps you should try
playing with Titanias song and Dervishes."
>-Chris Cade
>#254 DC Type 2 Rankings
>
>"Victim's, aren't we all?"
>
Friendly Greetings,
Daniel
Ceterum censeo Orbem Zurensem esse interdicendum.
(And otherwise I think that the Zuran Orb should be banned.)
The real no-brainer!
Stephan Valkyser
On 24 Jun 96, Daniel Brickwell (Br...@ccmailer.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de) wrote:
> Playing necro is not a stereotype when you are a good player it is just the
> bad players with the copied decks and their dark ritual hymn first round etc
> which spoil the necro players reputation. Strangely though these guys never
> make it to the top somehow. When I read the tourney reports I still
> recognize a lot of names and as long as that keeps happening I refuse to
> believe that playing necro is only luck and a stereotype.
Yes, just yesterday I've watched some kid playing with an obviously copied
necrodeck and *losing* to a U/W Millstone deck, which every decent Necro
player would have swept *easily*.
Playing Necro isn't only luck if *and only if* you're playing other (that is:
non-Necro) decks.
It is *only* luck, if you're playing another Necrodeck played by an
equally good player. No other matchup between same decks is as much luck-
dominated as a Necro-Necro matchup.
Just my $.02
Stephan
Ceterum censeo Orbem Zurensem esse interdicendum
(And otherwise I think that the Zuran Orb should be banned)
**************************************************************************
* Stephan J. Valkyser email: ste...@valkyser.tng.oche.de *
**************************************************************************
A Place to Play
In <4qm9eg$9...@fu-berlin.de> Br...@ccmailer.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de (Daniel
Brickwell) writes:
>
>Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>Yes, I am very mistaken. For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins. I also seemed to
>>think that he who has few cards, can rarely deal with an opponent who has
>>seven cards every turn, and still plays two or more cards each turn. Yes,
>>I must have been mistaken to think those things.
>
>No you were not. Your mistake is to think that necro always wins that way.
>There are often times when you can't necro, can't get that needed black mana
>and simply die to an ernham, because disks are so f****** slow. Then there
>are the times when its a real Slugfest and you win by decking the opponent.
>Infact, I even decked a Red/Green Ernham Burnem once. There are comebacks
>from 1 life and there are times when you get bolted to death at 9 life the
>round before the drain life.
>
>bad players with the copied decks and their dark ritual hymn first round etc
>which spoil the necro players reputation. Strangely though these guys never
>make it to the top somehow. When I read the tourney reports I still recognize
>a lot of names and as long as that keeps happening I refuse to believe that
>playing necro is only luck and a stereotype.
When the same things happen every time, stereotypes are born. Today's
Necrodeck is a fantastic creation. Skill was used in it's development. Skill
is used to play it. Skill, and enormous amounts of testing, have refined it.
Any deck can get a 'Best opening draw,' but the Necrodeck doesn't need one to
win. It's overall design allows it to recover from many bad situations, and
this same design allows it to make many good situations into absolute wins. It
is, in short, a GOOD deck. Sure, there is luck involved in random discard...
but lots of people seem to think it's this luck, and only this luck, that
carries the Necrodecks into the winner's circle. <chuckle>
>
>> I mean come on, I was
>>only beaten at Mana Fest in 5 of 6 games against two Necro players this
>>weekend by *one* Hymn each game... always pulling my key cards. Usually
>>NecroDecks don't pull the key cards in my hand I need to survive, but they
>>did this weekend. Both of my opponents told me that their first and
>>second turn Hymns were the *only* reason they won a few of those games
>>against me. I had the exact tools to beat my opponents, and they got
>>Hymned from my hand.
>>
>
>I am sure, they say that to all the guys they beat. Hey, I would too, as
>everybody plays Necro, it is better to hide in the masses and say your
>victory was due to Hymns then to say "I tested this deck for 3 months
and I
>knew what you were going to sideboard anyway and perhaps you should
try
>playing with Titanias song and Dervishes."
Shhhhh! Quit with the Titania's stuff, will ya? ;)
-Uncle
>
>>-Chris Cade
>>#254 DC Type 2 Rankings
>>
>>"Victim's, aren't we all?"
>>
>
>Friendly Greetings,
>
>Daniel
>
>Ceterum censeo Orbem Zurensem esse interdicendum.
>(And otherwise I think that the Zuran Orb should be banned.)
>
>The real no-brainer!
>
A Place to Play
In <6BV-9...@valkyser.tng.oche.de> ste...@valkyser.tng.oche.de (Stephan
>> bad players with the copied decks and their dark ritual hymn first round etc
>> which spoil the necro players reputation. Strangely though these guys never
>> make it to the top somehow. When I read the tourney reports I still
>> recognize a lot of names and as long as that keeps happening I refuse to
>> believe that playing necro is only luck and a stereotype.
>
>necrodeck and *losing* to a U/W Millstone deck, which every decent Necro
>player would have swept *easily*.
>Playing Necro isn't only luck if *and only if* you're playing other (that is:
>non-Necro) decks.
>It is *only* luck, if you're playing another Necrodeck played by an
>equally good player. No other matchup between same decks is as much luck-
>dominated as a Necro-Necro matchup.
You have this backwards. The luck involved in Necro-play does not change based
on the deck it is facing. Random discard (Specters & Hymns) do not mysteriously
become luckier or unluckier against another Necrodeck...nor do they suddenly need
more or less luck to be equally effective.
A match between 2 Necrodecks involves the same amount of luck, and even MORE
skill than other matches. It also relies heavily on the individual player's
Sideboard building skills & utilization. Have you ever noticed that a
Necro-player's turns take longer when he's facing another Necro? My guess is
that he is spending additional time weighing the effects of every action and
potential reaction. I don't think he's just delaying until Lady Luck
turns her head away for an instant... ;)
-Uncle
>
>Just my $.02
>
>Stephan
>
>
>Ceterum censeo Orbem Zurensem esse interdicendum
>
>(And otherwise I think that the Zuran Orb should be banned)
>
>**********************************************************************
Alan Cade
Br...@ccmailer.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de (Daniel Brickwell) wrote:
>Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>Yes, I am very mistaken. For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins. I also seemed to
>>think that he who has few cards, can rarely deal with an opponent who has
>>seven cards every turn, and still plays two or more cards each turn. Yes,
>>I must have been mistaken to think those things.
>
>No you were not. Your mistake is to think that necro always wins that way.
>There are often times when you can't necro, can't get that needed black mana
>and simply die to an ernham, because disks are so f****** slow. Then there
>are the times when its a real Slugfest and you win by decking the opponent.
>Infact, I even decked a Red/Green Ernham Burnem once. There are comebacks
>from 1 life and there are times when you get bolted to death at 9 life the
>round before the drain life.
I don't think you know who I am. I do not think Necro is the reason that
Necrodecks win consistently. Card advantage is everything. I believe the
Hymn is the reason they win. If you knew who I was, you'd know that
without a doubt.
>
>Playing necro is not a stereotype when you are a good player it is just the
>bad players with the copied decks and their dark ritual hymn first round etc
>which spoil the necro players reputation. Strangely though these guys never
>make it to the top somehow. When I read the tourney reports I still recognize
>a lot of names and as long as that keeps happening I refuse to believe that
>playing necro is only luck and a stereotype.
I agree, it is those lucky bad players who give the better ones a bad rep.
But if they're winning too, it really doesn't matter at all- because
they're winning.
>> I mean come on, I was
>>only beaten at Mana Fest in 5 of 6 games against two Necro players this
>>weekend by *one* Hymn each game... always pulling my key cards. Usually
>>NecroDecks don't pull the key cards in my hand I need to survive, but they
>>did this weekend. Both of my opponents told me that their first and
>>second turn Hymns were the *only* reason they won a few of those games
>>against me. I had the exact tools to beat my opponents, and they got
>>Hymned from my hand.
>>
>
>I am sure, they say that to all the guys they beat. Hey, I would too, as
>everybody plays Necro, it is better to hide in the masses and say your
>victory was due to Hymns then to say "I tested this deck for 3 months and
I hate to tell you this, but both of them were my friends. One of them I
beat consistently in friendly play and he fears my deck. The judge
watched me play all day, Mike Lewis, and he said that it was often just
one Hymn that beat me. Two necro players, both my friends were getting
the *one* lucky Hymn to beat me. The other necro player I played wasn't
so lucky, and he got Karma'ed fourth turn, and died 10 turns later. ;)
My friends spoke the truth to me, as I am to you. There were many
witnesses: my friends (the ones I played and the ones watching), myself,
strangers, and the judge who watched every one of my games. I was Hymned
first turn in three consecutive games by one opponent, and I managed to
beat him anyways. Why? Because he didn't zero in on the two of seven
cards I needed to survive. Yes, everyone has their sob Hymn story, but
mine is of truth from both sides. I lost to one Hymn in many games this
weekend. Ironically, it was the games where I was Hymned multiple times
that I won. ;) Go figure.
I
>knew what you were going to sideboard anyway and perhaps you should try
>playing with Titanias song and Dervishes."
Actually, my sideboard is completely transformational, so if anyone knew
what to sideboard against me, they were either scouting, had played me
before, or were my friend. One of the necro players who beat me, Patrick,
knew my deck, and after he consulted away his deck, I saw that he
sideboarded properly against me. Something any other Necro player
wouldn't have done. He was my friend, and yes he felt bad about Hymning
me, but he won and I didn't, and that is ultimately what mattered.
David J. Low
Chris Cade <Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins.
I tried to get Mario in on this point, and he didn't take up the
(poisoned?!) chalice. Anyone else care to have a go?
Given arguably equal decks, skill levels, and the ever-ephemeral "luck",
what is the breakpoint for 90% wins in terms of extra cards?
That is, just because you draw one card more than me, doesn't mean you're
going to win 90% of the time! Chris makes an obvious exaggeration above,
and it would be unfair to jump on his exact words :-) But, as I said
before, I'm perfectly happy that if you outdraw me 53 to 7, you'll
probably win :-)
Where's the breakpoint? How many cards more than me should you draw, to
feel you'd have a 90% chance of winning? More than 5?
Regards,
David.
--
{ David J. Low | dl...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }
{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }
{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center | "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness }
{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 | than blinded by the Light" }
Daniel Brickwell
Hi,
In article <4qo105$k...@mtibkc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, you say...
>
>I don't think you know who I am. I do not think Necro is the reason that
>Necrodecks win consistently. Card advantage is everything. I believe the
>Hymn is the reason they win. If you knew who I was, you'd know that
>without a doubt.
>
Sure I have heard of you. I might not know you, but I have spent enough time
on the net to have read several of your posts.
I was not trying to imply that you thought the hymn was the only reason necro
decks do so well, I was just reacting to your post in which it seemed to
sound that way, for public benefit so to speak.
>I agree, it is those lucky bad players who give the better ones a bad rep.
>But if they're winning too, it really doesn't matter at all- because
>they're winning.
All people can't win a tournament, they might win more than the usual amount
because they are playing an easy to copy and very stable deck, but they do
not appear to make it to the top circle.
>I hate to tell you this, but both of them were my friends. One of them I
>beat consistently in friendly play and he fears my deck. The judge
>watched me play all day, Mike Lewis, and he said that it was often just
>one Hymn that beat me. Two necro players, both my friends were getting
>the *one* lucky Hymn to beat me.
Just because it was true in this instance, does not change the fact that I
would still say it if it wasn't true ;) and I don't think you can seriously
say that you would have automatically won the games if you had kept the
cards. As far as I know there has been only one card printed which says
Opponent loses next turn (and that is not Type II legal ;-)
Friendly Greetings,
Daniel
Ceterum censeo Orbem Zurensem esse interdicendum.
(And otherwise I think that the Zuran Orb should be banned.)
A Place to Play
In <4qo7o0$v...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au
(David J. Low) writes:
>
>Chris Cade <Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins.
>
> I tried to get Mario in on this point, and he didn't take up the
> (poisoned?!) chalice. Anyone else care to have a go?
>
> Given arguably equal decks, skill levels, and the
no...NO! Don't say it!!
> ever-ephemeral "luck",
Well, now you've done it...
> what is the breakpoint for 90% wins in terms of extra cards?
By allowing 'luck' into the equation, you shut out all possible hope of
obtaining a solid answer. Given equal decks (say, 30 Mtns. and 30 Bolts,
interlaced 1 for 1) and equal skill (sheesh, like it's needed), a simple 2 for
1 card advantage will ensure 90%+ wins. Hell, a 1.2 for 1 card advantage
would do it, depending on who drew first. If ya want to take it to the level
of probabilities, I think I'll hang out with Mario and just watch. All I know
is that if you draw faster, and lose fewer to discard, you win more (in
general). Perdy simple.
>
> That is, just because you draw one card more than me, doesn't mean you're
> going to win 90% of the time! Chris makes an obvious exaggeration above,
> and it would be unfair to jump on his exact words :-) But, as I said
> before, I'm perfectly happy that if you outdraw me 53 to 7, you'll
> probably win :-)
Um...my deck has 30 Mountains and 30 Mon's Goblin Raiders. Your deck has 30
Plains and 30 Island Sanctuaries. I have the option of drawing 1-60 each
round. You may not draw more than 1 card a round. Exactly how much of a card
advantage will I need to win 90% of the time? ;P Some decks just can't win
no matter how fast they draw, or how immune to discard they may be.
>
> Where's the breakpoint? How many cards more than me should you draw, to
> feel you'd have a 90% chance of winning? More than 5?
Describe the exact contents of your deck, and the order of the cards in
that deck. I'll examine my deck as well, and give you the exact
answer. This answer will apply to this single game only. Once we
shuffle, I'll have to examine the order of the cards in each deck
again.
Awww, hell. I'm going to the beach.
Seeyas,
-Uncle
Alan Cade
d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) wrote:
>Chris Cade <Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins.
>
> I tried to get Mario in on this point, and he didn't take up the
> (poisoned?!) chalice. Anyone else care to have a go?
>
> what is the breakpoint for 90% wins in terms of extra cards?
>
> going to win 90% of the time! Chris makes an obvious exaggeration above,
> and it would be unfair to jump on his exact words :-) But, as I said
> before, I'm perfectly happy that if you outdraw me 53 to 7, you'll
> probably win :-)
Thanks for understanding me David. Yes, I did exaggerate to prove my
point. But it would be interesting to get figures on how many extra cards
one must draw in order to be almost guaranteed a win.
> Where's the breakpoint? How many cards more than me should you draw, to
> feel you'd have a 90% chance of winning? More than 5?
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>--
>{ David J. Low | dl...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }
>{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }
>{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center | "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness }
>{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 | than blinded by the Light" }
-Chris Cade
Alan Cade
Br...@ccmailer.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de (Daniel Brickwell) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>In article <4qo105$k...@mtibkc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, you say...
>>
>
>>Necrodecks win consistently. Card advantage is everything. I believe the
>>Hymn is the reason they win. If you knew who I was, you'd know that
>>without a doubt.
>>
>
>on the net to have read several of your posts.
>
>I was not trying to imply that you thought the hymn was the only reason necro
>decks do so well, I was just reacting to your post in which it seemed to
>sound that way, for public benefit so to speak.
>
>
>>But if they're winning too, it really doesn't matter at all- because
>>they're winning.
>
>because they are playing an easy to copy and very stable deck, but they do
I would definitely disagree. At many major tourneys in CA, a lot of "big
name players" aren't making the finals. In turn, many not so well known
players are doing considerable well.
>
>
>>I hate to tell you this, but both of them were my friends. One of them I
>>beat consistently in friendly play and he fears my deck. The judge
>>watched me play all day, Mike Lewis, and he said that it was often just
>>one Hymn that beat me. Two necro players, both my friends were getting
>>the *one* lucky Hymn to beat me.
>
>Just because it was true in this instance, does not change the fact that I
>would still say it if it wasn't true ;) and I don't think you can seriously
>say that you would have automatically won the games if you had kept the
>cards. As far as I know there has been only one card printed which says
>Opponent loses next turn (and that is not Type II legal ;-)
To be honest with you, there were a few games, where that one Hymn which
beat me, had it not occurred, or had it not gotten those exact cards, I
would have won, automatically. Both of my opponents knew this, and were
well aware that had they not gotten the lucky Hymn they did, they probably
would have lost. Honestly.
David J. Low
game...@ix.netcom.com(A Place to Play) writes:
>In <4qo7o0$v...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au
>(David J. Low) writes:
>>>For some odd reason, I was under the impression
>>>that 90% of the time, he who draws the most cards wins.
>>
>
>obtaining a solid answer. Given equal decks (say, 30 Mtns. and 30 Bolts,
1) I'm one of the (few?) believers that luck plays a part in MtG :-)
2) let's just deal with T2 decks, pre-AL, to keep things reasonable :-)
>All I know is that if you draw faster, and lose fewer to discard, you win
>more (in general). Perdy simple.
How much more? <duck> :-)
Anyway, the details aren't important, really. It should be possible for
a Necro-devotee to give a number that they feel "guarantees" them wins in
90% of applicable situations. I'm just interested in how small they
think that number is....
Note that this is the card-advantage analogue to the life-advantage
question I raised over a year ago - if (big if) the Weissman Deck is the
be-all and end-all of T1 development, at what life total does it stop being
so? That is, if both players started with 50 life, and all other rules were
the same, you'd have a hard time winning with (fast) damage :-) But if both
people started at 10 life, could a Weissman Deck still claim a >50% win
record against the field?
These questions are probably of absolutely no interest to the vast
majority of people here, but as a game theory dabbler, it's something I
enjoy thinking about :-)
>Describe the exact contents of your deck, and the order of the cards in
>that deck. I'll examine my deck as well, and give you the exact
>answer. This answer will apply to this single game only. Once we
>shuffle, I'll have to examine the order of the cards in each deck
>again.
>
>Awww, hell. I'm going to the beach.
I'm the guy underneath the large red umbrella, with half a dozen nubile
mermaids applying suntan lotion. Feel free to pull up a seat, and grab a
beer :-) You don't even have to look at the laptop and satellite link if
you don't want to :-) The only way to post....
Regards,
David (in a perfect world....).
David J. Low
>But it would be interesting to get figures on how many extra cards
>one must draw in order to be almost guaranteed a win.
Well, here's your chance. How many do you think you need to feel happy?
Hymn me once? Necro for 3 as well, then Disk (so you get your draw
back)? Remember, it's a *think* thing, almost impossible to put hard
numbers on...
Regards,
David.
Alan Cade
>Hashim and others,
>
>A well designed U/W deck played by a good player will beat an okay
>Necrodeck played by an average or poor player most of the time. But
>when the players are of equal skill, and the decks are both well
>designed, Necro will consistently beat U/W.
>
>In my last 32 tournament matches with a Necrodeck, I've lost 4. 2
>of the losses were to Necrodecks, 1 loss was to a white weenie deck,
>and 1 loss was to a W/g/r SMK deck played by Adam Green. I've
>played many good U/W players with anti-necro strategies (some with
>Karmas in the main deck) and I've beaten them all, including John
>Finkel in one of the NYC Pro Tourney 3 qualifiers.
>
>I'm still one of the few who believe that there is skill involved in
>playing Necro, and a good player will beat poor players most of the
>time. But if the players are of equal playing skills and deck
>design abilities, Necro is consistently the best type of deck to
>play.
There is much agreement here. I feel that the Hymn is what gives the not
so skilled Necro players a fair chance at winning consistently. When a
skilled player is behind the NecroDeck, I feel that it is the strongest
Type 2 deck currently. It takes great skill to play it correctly, i.e.
the way its creators intended for it to be played. Much like "The Deck."
Just because of my very grounded stance on the Hymn, I still do believe
that Necro takes great skill to play correctly, however, due to the Hymn,
I believe that it takes considerable less skill to win with consistently.
Alan Cade
>>But it would be interesting to get figures on how many extra cards
>>one must draw in order to be almost guaranteed a win.
>
> Well, here's your chance. How many do you think you need to feel happy?
> Hymn me once? Necro for 3 as well, then Disk (so you get your draw
> back)? Remember, it's a *think* thing, almost impossible to put hard
> numbers on...
Exactly. You know David, I was wondering. I don't think it is even
necessarily card advantage, so much as card cycling. Perhaps it is he who
sees the most cards wins. Jalum Tome is an excellent card, and it isn't
technically card advantage. Also, that is why people are so crazy about
Soldevi Excavations. Wow, I'm so insightful! :) Interesting thought
though, card advantage no, card cycling yes. Maybe.
David J. Low
>'warm fuzzy feeling' while playing my necrodeck. It usually happens when the
>playing field has been leveled (right after a disk, balance, wrath) and both
>of us are low on cards (0-2 cards in hand). If I can 'potence at this time,
>despite taking a big hit in the life department, I get the warm-fuzzies.
>Now, this equates to a mere 5-7 card advantage, and I'm sure the timing of
>it plays a part, but that is all the advantage required in the majority of
>games.
I think the important thing here is the timing, as opposed to the raw
number of cards. There's a difference between drawing one extra card
every second turn, and drawing 7 cards in a stack once the field has been
levelled. The burst gives options which the slow-draw doesn't...in
*this* type of deck. 'Coz then we have:
>Come to think of it, when playing a Weissman deck...7-9 card draws from
>Tome/Library is usually sufficient to ensure victory (based on watching
>about 15 consecutive games).
So raw card advantage isn't necessarily the important number, it's some
function of CA and d(CA)/dt :-) And if you're playing with LoA, it's
d^2(CA)/dt^2, otherwise known as "who got it first?" :-)
>I guess that gives us a starting point. Luck DOES mess with the hard numbers
>though.
If initial hand size was bigger, would weenies dominate (more)? :-)
No, I didn't ask that question. Just...forget about it :-) Did I
mention that I like Hypotheticals as well?
>Simply put, if you change fixed elements of the play environment (Starting
>Life, minimum cards in deck, number of cards per type, etc.) then deck
>designs will be altered to be competitive in that environment. Certain deck
>strategies would be more efficient in different environments.
I think that's a given, certainly in the large scale. The casce I was
more interested in at the time was the next one:
>Therefor, your answer: 'The Deck' ceases to be a top deck when life totals
>vary from 20 +/- 2 life points. Why 2 life points (18-22)? It should be
>obvious. That's how many life points Brian had remaining when I last dueled
>with him. With 18 starting life, my deck is
>obviously superior...and Brian would have to tweak his deck. ;)
That was the number I picked as well, actually, from local testing (and
not even against Brian!) :-) It made the game interesting - we just
started playing decks that consistently did damage a fraction quicker,
and even though TD could keep up with maybe one or two of them by
tweaking, the variety (and the available card pool at the time, and our
own skill levels, etc...) prevented a return to dominance over the
*field*. My RGU flying weenie/blaster topped the T1 scene back home after
that, for a very short while until we stopped playing T1 "seriously" :-)
But the other interesting point was the *variance*. That is, the final
lifepoints for TD in the games it won against fast damage-oriented decks.
It was a pity we only had one player who, IMHO, understood how to play it
properly (Hi Nathan, how's Toronto?) :-/ Limits the dataset somewhat.
But again, reflected the +/-2 you mention above. Nice to get independent
sources agreeing :-)
Now we'll get onto luck in MtG, and whether the variation of 2 life
points can be attributed to luck, at what frequency...or, alternatively:
>I'd be too busy looking at the....um...beer. ;)
Hey! Get your eyes off my...beer :-)
SCN User
DavidJ.LowSez:
That is, just because you draw one card more than me, doesn't mean you're
going to win 90% of the time! Chris makes an obvious exaggeration above,
and it would be unfair to jump on his exact words :-) But, as I said
before, I'm perfectly happy that if you outdraw me 53 to 7, you'll
probably win :-)
On the other hand, if they draw 53 cards (in addition to the 7 in hand)
then they'd better be able to beat you this turn, because they won't
be able to DRAW next turn. Sucks to be them...
--Mirth
Craig Sivils
d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) wrote:
> That was the number I picked as well, actually, from local testing (and
> not even against Brian!) :-) It made the game interesting - we just
> started playing decks that consistently did damage a fraction quicker,
> and even though TD could keep up with maybe one or two of them by
> tweaking, the variety (and the available card pool at the time, and our
> own skill levels, etc...) prevented a return to dominance over the
> *field*. My RGU flying weenie/blaster topped the T1 scene back home after
> that, for a very short while until we stopped playing T1 "seriously" :-)
> But the other interesting point was the *variance*. That is, the final
> lifepoints for TD in the games it won against fast damage-oriented decks.
> It was a pity we only had one player who, IMHO, understood how to play it
> properly (Hi Nathan, how's Toronto?) :-/ Limits the dataset somewhat.
> But again, reflected the +/-2 you mention above. Nice to get independent
> sources agreeing :-)
Once again, there's more than math involved here. Its quite possible
that if you started with 25 life that TD would still end up with 2
life left. You don't counter a bolt if its not going to kill you,
therefore the life of a TD player tends to plumet then hold steady.
While my experience tells me that there isn't much if any life to
spare, I think playing decisions would have a huge affect on the % win
factor as the starting life changes.
But with bolt as a measure unit, 18 is a full unit less that 20 and 22
is a full unit more :)
Craig
David J. Low
Honma?!
>Its quite possible
>that if you started with 25 life that TD would still end up with 2
>life left. You don't counter a bolt if its not going to kill you,
>therefore the life of a TD player tends to plumet then hold steady.
>While my experience tells me that there isn't much if any life to
>spare, I think playing decisions would have a huge affect on the % win
>factor as the starting life changes.
It's more of a "theme" thing. TD takes a finite amount of time before it
can set up a controlled environment. That time can be measured in turns,
for example, as an average with a variance. Similarly, a fast-damage
deck can inflict damage at a certain (non-linear) rate. I like to
imagine it as two competing "objective-achievement" rate curves, for
example.
>But with bolt as a measure unit, 18 is a full unit less that 20 and 22
>is a full unit more :)
The Bolt might not be the only measure, but it's good enough for me :-)