Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2017-Aug-20 7:17 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 2:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Drake
I take a weekend to chill out, and I return to yet another shitstorm I accidentally made by posing an honest question about someone's intentions in the context of their post, jeez. :roll:

I don't know about Epsilon, but when I describe a 3 color manabase as greedy- it's usually along the parameters of something like 35 or less land, with less than 7 basics, and a whole lot of lands that produce 2 mana. Greedy doesn't indicate expensive (hell, many of my favorite basics cost more than buddylands and some 5c lands.) So yeah, greedy 3 color decks, and 4-5 color decks in generally should have to deal with the opportunity cost of having a manabase that's soft to Ghost Quarter effects. I don't necessarily mean in the way that "we should rub their noses in it", but in the sense that "well, it's an angle of attack."

In my own experience, I've tec edged many 5c lands from a Scion deck about to go off. It isn't the nicest way to buy a turn, but wholly necessary at times to help the table keep up.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 2:49 pm 

Joined: 2011-Aug-18 3:35 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Willbender wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
Even legacy and modern decks run basics for exactly this reason. Ghost Quarter, New Frontiers, and any number of other spells are a thing. Basics matter. If you're intentionally being greedy with your mana base you deserve to be blown out by effects like this.
Except that if you're running around 3-6 basics in your deck (for a "true highlander" deck), you're being unfairly punished at the table for a stylistic choice - not a power one. And neither of your examples equate to the nastiness that is the land destruction of Ruination & friends. Ghost Quarter hits a single land, and New Frontiers will only ramp other players, not cause a one-sided Armageddon.

If you had a player at your table with an oldschool (pre-BfZ) Karn, Silver Golem deck, would you still say Wave of Vitriol is fair?

The simple fact of the matter is that any of these build-around MLD effects are going to completely ruin the game for players in a large number of the games they're played in. What's worse is that they don't even kill the player (like Price of Progress would), but instead effectively remove them from the game without removing them from the game - this means the player either sits there for an hour+ doing effectively nothing to the game state, or they rage quit. And that's just it - you've just pushed one or more players into a horrible game experience (boredom or ragequit) with a single card, often after they've already invested an hour+ into the game.

Saying "well, don't run so many non-basics" is like dropping an Iona, Shield of Emeria and telling players, "well, don't run mono-colored decks." The response you're going to get is typically going to be "fuck you", and for good reason.

These cards may be fine for a more competitive meta, but if they're being played in a casual game (like the OP claimed their game was) they're not. Casual games should not make you build around cards that will force you into a sit-here-bored-for-hours-doing-nothing-or-ragequit situation. They cause arguments, they cause fights, and they generally just ruin playgroups. I've even had players quit playing Commander altogether over issues like this.



You're grossly mistaken if you think a new frontiers or the other similar card is not the same as a ruination. Being left at 2-3 lands while everyone else is on 10 is exactly the same effect, just reversed.

If I had an old Karn deck at the table and someone played one of these, I'd make them aware of basics being available since half the lands in that type of deck were effectively wastes. It's not my fault they haven't updated their deck. Most players are also aware of what counters their chosen deck and still play it anyway.

It's also not a "simple fact" that these will "ruin" the game in most games they're played in. That is 100% opinion and not even close to reality. I've never seen anyone's game "ruined" by these cards. Even the guys that play 5 color decks with no basics tend to shrug these cards off and both of those players (in my meta) are as "casual" as they come.

The "run more basics" vs "don't play mono color" are not comparable. In the first, you've made a bad deck building decision by not adapting to your metagame and now you're vulnerable. In the second, the Iona player has made a dick move to lock out the mono color deck. You can argue that it's similar but it's not. You can metagame to include colorless options but you can still play whatever commander you wish and you can also politic to get help from the rest of the table. Without fail, when that happens, I have witnessed the rest of the table help that player out and it's never worked out for the Iona player since he's permanently labeled a dick (unless the mono color player deserved it).

From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol are not "competitive" cards. Competitive metas will play cards that leave you without lands, not replace them. These are perfectly fine casual cards. "Soft" land destruction at best.

Quote:
Okay, for the sake of clarity and to ensure we are all talking about the same things, could somebody please define what constitutes a "greedy" or "expensive" manabase? Do lands deserve to be blown up because they can produce more than one color? Is a manabase "greedy" for having one or two heavy cards; or only if more than 50% (ish) of lands are "greedy"?


I would consider a 3-5 color deck expecting to consistently play Necropotence OR Ball Lighting reliably on curve greedy (AKA 10 fetch, 10 duals, 10 shocks, rest utility or "any color"). I would consider a 3-5 color deck running cabal coffers greedy (actual 3+ color not 75% black with splash). I would consider a 4-5 color deck with more than a couple thematic colorless lands greedy. I would consider a mana base that doesn't have enough lands to support the curve greedy (Like 30 lands in an angel deck) I would consider a deck playing more than ~7-10 tapped lands greedy (and bad - if you can't afford "good" lands, run more basics and run more land fixing rather than playing cards that enter tapped). These choices all tend to try to force a mana base to do things that are unrealistic in the format. They leave glaring weaknesses (like the cards brought up in this thread) in the deck and will generally leave you unable to cast cards in your hand more often than not. For example, the first mana base will offer amazing fixing but if you're expecting to curve from necropotence into cryptic command it's still just not happening 90% of the time in a five color deck and you're still just folding to ruination or from the ashes. Likewise, Coffers is amazing, especially with Urborg but if you're expecting it to even net a positive amount of mana in a 3-5 color deck in 75% of games it's just not happening.

There is zero downside to running 10-15 basics and obviously significant upside to it.

Cavern of Souls color fixes and prevents counterspells in legacy and modern. It's been expensive for a long time and keeps going up every time they skip a chance to reprint it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 6:24 pm 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
There's 2 issues here: 1.) mass LD on a pile of non shennanigan lands and 2.) everything else Wave of Vitriol does.

1)
I think we are all ok with strategies that leverage "power" lands (Cradle, Chasm, Coffers etc.) getting their toys broken. We're generally less ok with "harmless" colour fixing lands getting nerfed.

However, there is a power curve in Commander. Some colour mixes are better than others, multiple colours tend to be better than mono-colours and, even if you are not playing anything too broken, if you run 4 & 5 colours, you generally have access to a multitude more powerful effects than decks running less colours have access to.

To counterbalance this, deck with less colours have some consistancy advantages but no-where near the level of power you can get running 3+ colours.

Should players have to play multiple colours to compete? Does a mono red or Mono Green player not have as much right to run spells that thwart opponent's plans as that opponent has of running the best cards from multiple colours? Of course you use whatever tool is available to you to help your deck win. You don't just accept that an opponent gets to play CC and CCC spells of diiferent colours on the same turn as a given. You challenge them, make it difficult, you interrupt their game plan.

Sometimes it's good to have cards in the format that remind you that there's a cost to running decks with more access to powerful effects, even if that reminder is just saying that you can have your mana off basics only until you rebuild. With the increase of the ability to play lands from your graveyard, it's more of a speed-bump now thatn it ever was before in any case.

There should be cards like this available, people should play them and people should build expecting to have their toys, including their mana base, interfered with.

I appreciate Ashes & Wave (over pure NB LD like Ruination) because I'm generally the one they are being played against. I also appreciate them because they replace a large proportion of my manabase, setting me back but not neutering me. And my deck reacts to this with the ability to recover things, including lands, from my graveyard. That's how it should be.

No-one is complaining about Blood Moon here which is just as devestating to 4 & 5 decks.

2)
Specifically on Wave of Vitriol: The lands thing is strong, replacement is a nice sop to people who have included basics in their deck (which I highly recommend) but you're also getting mass artifact & enchantment sacrifice. If your deck runs green, even with multiple other colours, it's a strong tool to regulate the table.

If your deck doesn't run green and you're complaining about the Land part, I'm wondering why you're not running more artifacts and enchantments to be unhappy about the Artifact & Enchantment part too...??

_________________
Current decks:
Mimeoplasm Goodstuff Foils
Sydri Artifact Foils
Gisa & Geralf Zombie Horde
Atraxa Superfriends
New-zilek Eldrazi (5C Devoid)
Norin Goblins
Marath Legends
Sidisi MBC


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 11:37 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
My guess would be that losing artifacts and enchantments sucks, but is seen as acceptable.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 12:20 am 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
niheloim wrote:
My guess would be that losing artifacts and enchantments sucks, but is seen as acceptable.


Ok. What about planeswalkers and creatures? Sucks but acceptable too?

Then why not any permanent more complex than a basic land, including non-basic lands?


Look, I'm not in any way saying that people should hate on any particular permanent type, just that these kind of cards are important to have in the metagame and that players shouldn't be dependant on any single card type, outside of the most basic, to be able to give minimum service to their ability to play their game.

You can play 5 colour with only basics. You choose to play only non-basics to make the deck more consistant and allow yourself to use easy mode on deciding what convoluted mana costs you include together in your deck.

My POV is that there is a middle ground that you should aspire to so as not to allow yourself to be caught out by these effects, not that these effects should never exist or are in some way "unfair" because you really want your Plains to be a Scrubland.

I also have no issue with someone deciding to run only non-basics. That's a strategy too, just one that comes with occasional downsides to balance the upsides.

_________________
Current decks:
Mimeoplasm Goodstuff Foils
Sydri Artifact Foils
Gisa & Geralf Zombie Horde
Atraxa Superfriends
New-zilek Eldrazi (5C Devoid)
Norin Goblins
Marath Legends
Sidisi MBC


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 12:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Drake
zimagic wrote:
If your deck doesn't run green and you're complaining about the Land part, I'm wondering why you're not running more artifacts and enchantments to be unhappy about the Artifact & Enchantment part too...??


Part of it is an irrational response, and one that I can understand in terms of sharing a playgroup where it's just a thing. Something very similar in that regard is mill. Some players just hate being milled- you can show them how powerful a "mill yourself" strategy is, you can show them how to play cards that punish milling with extreme value, you can point out how mill decks have to play extra cards specifically to exile graveyards, and thus lack their own graveyard as a constant resource. But, even if they understand, appreciate, and are capable of utilizing all of that... They just don't like having to put cards off the top of their deck and into their graveyard.

For some people, large scale LD is that. I can drop Planar Cleansing every turn, but if there's a Strip Mine, they're on edge. If there's an Armageddon played, they're on tilt. I think it goes back to previous playgroups while they were learning the game where colorscrewing/landscrewing (much like mill,) was played in such a way that it made them actively enjoy the game less (funsuck + new player experience = irrational dread for a type of effect;) which in terms of settling into an EDH playgroup is easy to empathize with (I myself get fairly frustrated with Tempo decks.)

EDIT:
Idk about the above post, Most 3+ color decks tend to gravitate towards specific colors with a/2/3 splash colors. Those decks tend to just have splash/golden/their commander cards hit by Ashes and co. I'm not a fan of playing 4-5 color decks, the same way I'm not a fan of mono colored decks, but they can be (and often) are built quite well. Magic players aren't stupid, and it doesn't take long to learn that the amount of your deck commited to certain colors usually involves one or more colors playing a supportive role (think of Temur decks that are about half mono green spells, a chunk of gold cards, with a few tech options from U and R. Or alternatively, Roon battlecruiser decks that are built WGu for Mulldrifter, DEN and friends. Or for that matter, the WUg Roon decks that jump hard into the flicker-for-value game.)

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 2:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Dec-10 12:16 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
zimagic wrote:
You can play 5 colour with only basics. You choose to play only non-basics to make the deck more consistant and allow yourself to use easy mode on deciding what convoluted mana costs you include together in your deck.


I would say "You can build a 5 color deck with only basic lands, but it takes a forgiving playgroup or extreme warp of the deck to be playable." I've tried more than once. I've tried 8 each of all 5 basics. I've tried ratio based basic land distribution. I've tried 7 each of basics with a token amount of non-basics (less than the average 2-3 color deck - just things like Evolving wilds for fixing). Almost every version meant doing "draw-go" for most of the first 6-8 turns. The only two that were semi-successful in pick-up games were:

1) 50+ cards devoted to mana production and fixing (land, rock and ramp), so half-of-a-deck that wasn't color screwed, but didn't really do anything either.

2) A Gwubr so that it was 5 color only because of the general - it required way too much Green to make it payable. That said, I still have one deck close to this on purpose.1

Keep in mind my experiences are warped by being nearly exclusively online - so there is no playgroup to adapt or meta to build within. In pick-up games, my experience is that a 5 Color deck needs duals of some kind to have a hope of playing a non-land card in the first 3-4 turns (unless the deck is actually 5C artifact or something similar) consistently.

In the end, all of this is a very personal and playgroup decision. Though consensus is highly unlikely, these discussions are valuable because it exposes all of us to a wide range of thoughts on the subject and, hopefully, makes all of us more accepting of dissenting opinion.

I will continue to avoid these kinds on cards in my decks2; because, frankly, I hate being unable to play the game (I call it semi-active spectating - you still technically draw and untap, but you aren't really playing) and I won't risk dong it to somebody else when I know how much I hate it. However, I won't assume malicious intent or be upset at players that do run these effects3 just because they happened to have a single From the Ashes or something. I will still avoid playing people that prefer the Armageddon style LD, when possible. If they have a group that enjoys it, good for them. But that isn't the kind of game I want to play with my limited playing time.




Note 1: My Progenitus Hydra Tribal is essentially RGwub. It wants Progenitus in the command zone, but the tribe is so RG heavy that wub all play supporting roles (mostly proliferate and +/- counters). But even so RG heavy, it runs a few more nonbasics than it would in paper - because they are cheap and easy online. If I were to convert to paper, I would probably run about 16-18 basics I think.

Note 2: I don't currently have a deck running any of them, but I can imagine there might be a compelling thematic reason to include one - such as possibly using Wave of Vitriol if I ever made an Ooze tribal.

Note 3: Unless of course they are (ab)using these effects, such as one player online that was using multiple version and recurring them - and seemed confused why people didn't "accept" it because they are "fair effects". IIRC it was wave of vitriol turns 5 and 9, ruination turn 8. I keep having to remind myself "Don't assume malice that which can be explained by stupidity." Maybe that player really was that clueless.... but I doubt it.

_________________
V/R

HK

Hazezon Tamar - Manland theme
Seshiro the Anointed - Snake Tribal
Jedit Ojanen of Efrava - Cat and Warrior Dual Tribal
Doran, the Seige Tower - Wall Tribal
Progenitus - Hydra themed Proliferate Deck
Karona, the False God - Backstabbing Hug


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 7:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
Treamayne wrote:
a 5 Color deck needs duals of some kind to have a hope of playing a non-land card in the first 3-4 turns (unless the deck is actually 5C artifact or something similar) consistently.

Well, that's the way the game was intentionally designed. In early Magic, when crafting a deck, you had to choose between trading off a little consistency for access to more colors, or playing mono color. As more mana fixers have been printed, this has become less true, particularly after the filterlands of Shadowmoor/Eventide, but these higher-consistency manabases do have a hidden cost to them, which is what this thread is about. Nonbasic hate is a balancing tool, not just to balance out the obviously broken big mana lands like Coffers, but to reinforce that cost of playing all the colors in a single deck. Locally banning those tools means the mono-color decks have fewer options to rebalance their disadvantage.

That said, there are many 5-color decks that are not just Goodstuff, and many mono-color decks that are extremely cutthroat due to the power of the commander they can consistently cast. This format has a huge range of casual decks, and generally "being able to play the cards in my deck" is more fun than the alternative. If the only options were "play 40 fixers" or "play a maximum-2-colored deck," I would definitely side with the player running a casual 5-color Angels deck who just wants to be able to play the game over the cutthroat Slobad with Ruination and Blood Moon. However, we are not talking about Ruination/Back to Basics, and if you can still perform very consistently with 15 basics and 25 fixers, and are not doing so, your manabase is greedy, and you might get away with that in some playgroups but don't be surprised when you see a Wave of Vitriol in a new environment (or even your same environment as your opponents build new decks and local metas shift).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 8:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Dec-10 12:16 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
intreped wrote:
Treamayne wrote:
a 5 Color deck needs duals of some kind to have a hope of playing a non-land card in the first 3-4 turns (unless the deck is actually 5C artifact or something similar) consistently.

Well, that's the way the game was intentionally designed....but don't be surprised when you see a Wave of Vitriol in a new environment (or even your same environment as your opponents build new decks and local metas shift).


Exactly. I didn't say it was a bad thing, just connecting the dots.

5 color isn't reliable on an all-basic and build (not that I imagine any EDH deck having 0 non-basic lands).
Therefore, 5 color decks (and 3-4 color decks to an extent) will need some amount of nonbasic color support. (My personal experience is 40-60% basics works well, depending on the deck)
Therefore, Vitriol/Ashes players should consider the board state and players before playing this card (once in hand, if you build with these cards).
Additionally, 3-5 color deck players should build knowing these are probable and accept that risk; unless specifically negotiated otherwise with a play group (and know a pick-up game can should be negotiated as well, or expect anything).

_________________
V/R

HK

Hazezon Tamar - Manland theme
Seshiro the Anointed - Snake Tribal
Jedit Ojanen of Efrava - Cat and Warrior Dual Tribal
Doran, the Seige Tower - Wall Tribal
Progenitus - Hydra themed Proliferate Deck
Karona, the False God - Backstabbing Hug


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 5:55 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
zimagic wrote:
niheloim wrote:
My guess would be that losing artifacts and enchantments sucks, but is seen as acceptable.


Ok. What about planeswalkers and creatures? Sucks but acceptable too?
Sure. When someone pops Merciless Eviction and hits walkers or creatures I'm sure no one is crying foul the same way as when any kind of mass LD occurs. It is generally expected that non-land permanents are open for removal.

Quote:
Then why not any permanent more complex than a basic land, including non-basic lands?
I don't understand the question... I guess.

Non-basic lands are nearly as fundamental to most games as any land. Ruination is a pretty dick card in most circles. I've cut it in every instance because it just wasn't necessary for my red decks. So why not nonbasic? Why stop there. Why not allow anything as fair game?

Why are basic lands sacrosanct? If you're going to parse between one land and the next to make an excuse for the existence of cards like Wave of Vitriol, then why not make excuses for Armageddon?

The answer comes down to playability and the fun found in a game. Are the cards working in the meta? Are they making games interesting and fun?

Quote:
Look, I'm not in any way saying that people should hate on any particular permanent type, just that these kind of cards are important to have in the metagame and that players shouldn't be dependant on any single card type, outside of the most basic, to be able to give minimum service to their ability to play their game.

You can play 5 colour with only basics. You choose to play only non-basics to make the deck more consistant and allow yourself to use easy mode on deciding what convoluted mana costs you include together in your deck.

My POV is that there is a middle ground that you should aspire to so as not to allow yourself to be caught out by these effects, not that these effects should never exist or are in some way "unfair" because you really want your Plains to be a Scrubland.

I also have no issue with someone deciding to run only non-basics. That's a strategy too, just one that comes with occasional downsides to balance the upsides.
It is a bit disingenuous to say that you can play 5-color with all basic lands. I can technically build a mono red deck with nothing but islands, but I'm veritably going to run into trouble if i'm expecting to be able to cast my red spells- I dunno, maybe I'm expecting to draw Chromatic Lantern every game.

Multi-colored decks need nonbasics to function properly. Up until recently it wasn't possible to build Karn or the eldrazi with basic lands. Cards like Ruination, Wave of Vitriol, From the Ashes have very little place in a casual meta where such decks like Karn exist.

Thats not to say they should be banned. They are subject to the social contract like anything else.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 6:29 am 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
niheloim wrote:
It is a bit disingenuous to say that you can play 5-color with all basic lands.


But you can and it's no less valid than planing no basics, just less consistant and more difficult to diversify your spells. I did say I advocate a middle ground.

niheloim wrote:
I can technically build a mono red deck with nothing but islands, but I'm veritably going to run into trouble if i'm expecting to be able to cast my red spells- I dunno, maybe I'm expecting to draw Chromatic Lantern every game.


You can't though, those mono red generals preclude you using islands.

niheloim wrote:
Multi-colored decks need nonbasics to function properly. Up until recently it wasn't possible to build Karn or the eldrazi with basic lands. Cards like Ruination, Wave of Vitriol, From the Ashes have very little place in a casual meta where such decks like Karn exist.

Thats not to say they should be banned. They are subject to the social contract like anything else.


Seperate things here. Multi-coloured decks need non-basics to function better, not "properly". I'll ceed you Karn & Eldrazi (though I never mentioned colourless or mono-brown as it's obviously the counterpoint to my arguament, I have no pre-Gatewatch out for these decks.)

_________________
Current decks:
Mimeoplasm Goodstuff Foils
Sydri Artifact Foils
Gisa & Geralf Zombie Horde
Atraxa Superfriends
New-zilek Eldrazi (5C Devoid)
Norin Goblins
Marath Legends
Sidisi MBC


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 6:43 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
zimagic wrote:
niheloim wrote:
I can technically build a mono red deck with nothing but islands, but I'm veritably going to run into trouble if i'm expecting to be able to cast my red spells- I dunno, maybe I'm expecting to draw Chromatic Lantern every game.


You can't though, those mono red generals preclude you using islands.
The commander need not be mono red, just the deck. I could play Jhoira, all islands and all red burn spells.

Quote:
niheloim wrote:
Multi-colored decks need nonbasics to function properly. Up until recently it wasn't possible to build Karn or the eldrazi with basic lands. Cards like Ruination, Wave of Vitriol, From the Ashes have very little place in a casual meta where such decks like Karn exist.

Thats not to say they should be banned. They are subject to the social contract like anything else.


Seperate things here. Multi-coloured decks need non-basics to function better, not "properly". I'll ceed you Karn & Eldrazi (though I never mentioned colourless or mono-brown as it's obviously the counterpoint to my arguament, I have no pre-Gatewatch out for these decks.)
better vs. properly is a semantic thing. Better and proper is all in relation to the meta, and I can't imagine a meta where a multicolor deck with only basics is working in par with a mono colored deck except in the most extreme of instances. So working properly is working better than with just basics.


As for Karn and friends- I actually took my Karn apart because I was tired of not being able to keep up with the basic land ramp. AND THEN they print Wastes... I would have loved to been able to play Wayfarers Bauble, Solemn Simulacrum, Burnished Hart, Journeyer's Kite etc. in Karn and keep up with the other decks using basics.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 10:43 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Treamayne wrote:
Edit PS: How and why did Cavern of Souls get so overpriced? I didn't think tribal was that popular...

Eldrazi in modern and legacy. It's also run in several other modern decks.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 12:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Dec-10 12:16 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
specter404 wrote:
Treamayne wrote:
Edit PS: How and why did Cavern of Souls get so overpriced? I didn't think tribal was that popular...

Eldrazi in modern and legacy. It's also run in several other modern decks.

Thanks for the info. At least I already have all I need in both paper and online. Though, I hate when stupidity affects a nice casual card.

_________________
V/R

HK

Hazezon Tamar - Manland theme
Seshiro the Anointed - Snake Tribal
Jedit Ojanen of Efrava - Cat and Warrior Dual Tribal
Doran, the Seige Tower - Wall Tribal
Progenitus - Hydra themed Proliferate Deck
Karona, the False God - Backstabbing Hug


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What is your stance on From the Ashes/Wave of Vitriol?
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 1:50 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
As to Wave of Vitriol, my stance is; play more basics. Getting a board full of dual lands nuked is annoying, but in my opinion, every 3 colour deck should have 8-10 basic lands minimum. I literally will not play less than 3 of each colour basic in my 3C decks. My 4C decks have minimum 2 of each and I don't even play in a meta where the wave is remotely common. When I was introduced to the format, play some basics was one of the informal rules I was given, not because everyone played ruination, but because it was not a weakness worth having.

I have both a 5C and a Karn deck which do not fulfill the rules I have started above, but I fully accept the deck's weakness to non-basic hate. When wave was released, and wastes didn't exist, I would ask whoever I sat down with whether or not they played it (or another ruination effect) and if the answer was yes, then I just didn't play those decks.

Currently, my 5C deck has one of each basic and Karn has about 5-6 wastes so I'm not completely dead to wave (even if it is also a wrath most of the time for Karn), and I see no reason at all that people should not have at least 6-10 lands in play after wave resolves.

So TLDR, my definition of a greedy mana base is any which has less than 2 basics of each colour in your CI, and if your deck meets that criteria then when wave kicks your mana base in the junk, you have no right to respond with vitriol.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: