It depends on how often you attack turn 2 with a geared up lynx vs say a turn 5 lynx with Armament Master in play. Clearly the early beats go to the lynx by a few points of damage, but mid game I think the flying on the kitesail would be key. The damage is no different once an AM is in play equiped.
It feels like poor planning on the part of ShardFenix and Paul Leicht to have two articles about the same topic posted on the same day. There are two arguments going on here in two different places. Seems like a little coordination would have been called for here. But that's not what I want to talk about.
I already posted my thoughts on the subject on Paul's article, but I will kind of repeat myself as well as add on a few more thoughts. As long as this format stays Classic, it will stay over-powered. I have to agree with the other poster that commented that there seems to be some sour grapes here. I have play tested against all of the people mentioned LE, Shard, AJImpy, etc. and their decks ARE overpowered, no matter how you slice it. You can play apologist all you want, and they can post here saying that asking them to lower their power curve would force them to run 20 Grizzly Bears, none of that matters and it's just show for show's sake. Frankly, it's insulting. People got beat at their own game and now their mad. Making the arguement that it is okay for these three to stomp people into the ground, but not okay for people other than them to do it, is asinine.
It's a classic TOURNAMENT, which means you have to expect people to show up with tournament quality decks. That's how Magic works. Think about it logically, if the point wasn't to win, why is there a prize? Unless you're me, most people don't design decks that aren't supposed to win. We're supposed to feel angry at these clan members that showed up and did what tournament players do? So if I showed up and ran the Fish deck, that would be ok, but not if someone who was part of a clan was doing it? I'm sorry that doesn't fly. You want the spikes to go away? Stop offering a prize.
I'd also like to point out that the two people listed here as First, Second, and Third are WEEKLY writers for this site. ArchGenius mentioned that people who show up with casual or budget decks will routinely get crushed by these folks. Look at the cost of some of those decks being played. I am not trying to fault people like LE, but even he himself posted an article where he made a deck for under 10 tickets and tried it out in the casual room. He posted how bad and angry he felt when people were playing much more expensive cards than him that he had no budget answer to. It must be a lot easier to build a deck when MTGOtraders is footing the bill. Nothing says "budget" like running $100 worth of Vindicate. Is LE to blame for that? Heck no! If I was entering a CLASSIC tournament, and I had FoW's and Vindicates, you can bet I would be running them FOR SURE! Why? Because it is a tournament and I want to win!
There was the claim both in this article and in Paul's that Tribal Classic is a "casual" format. I'm looking at those top three decks again and not seeing the casual connection. $100 of Vindicate backed up by $80 of Malestrom Pulse; that's casual? Shard's deck was a TIER ONE standard deck just last year. If that's the definition of casual, then by all means the person who shows up with an actual casual deck should feel outraged. Clearly they were lied to. As for clan members running Fish decks... well too bad. When you run a Classic tournament and people are running expensive, classic tournament staples, you have to expect that the serious players will show up.
So the conclusion of this rant is, if the idea of "fixing" these tournaments is to get the spikes to go away, then stop offering a prize. If the idea that this is a casual tournament and it needs to get back to that, then the solution there is to stop lying to yourself. Check the past 4 months of this article and look at the deck lists. This is NOT a causal format. If you want a real solution to fixing the tournaments so that less busted decks are running around, well then there have been a lot of good solutions (and some impossible ones) posted here and in Paul's article. The real message is the tournament scene will NOT change while you fight to keep the status quo. Real changes have to be made other than just saying clan members shouldn't come.
I hope this post doesn't cost me any MTGO buddies. It sounds kind of mean, but I felt it needed to be said.
Iceage4life wrote in his article, "Getting a lot of lands into play is one of, if not the best way to win consistently in Commander". It's true. I aim at having at least 10 mana by turn 12. I usually run 40 lands plus 5 or so cards that help me fetch lands or improve my draw. Commander is a game of high powered spells, you need the mana to be able to cast those spells effectively. Here are some of the cards I like to use.
40 lands? I usually try and fit in 45 unless the deck is more aggressive/cheap than normal. It helps getting with consistently getting 14 not 10 mana on turn 12.
Uhm... yes, he's right. Forget Blazing Torch, it wasen't a good idea in the first place :). Just replace it with Expedition Map to get your Valakut in time.
I prefer to play Steppe Lynx because of those 8 fetchlands and 3 Adventuring Gears in deck which have great synergy with Steppe Lynx. Surely Armament Master doesn't help the cat, but our aim is to lower our opponent's life total as fast as we can, and Steppe Lynx is better than Kitesail Apprentice for that purpose.
this deck seems well positioned right now since zoo is on the decline and control is on the rise. If zoo/rdw pick back up though this deck has no chance.
Also if peeps start playing the gaeas blessings again, mill loses.
Why not just put a money limit on decks? Ex: no deck can be worth more than 30tix.
That makes combo still possible but very very hard to pull off, and it eliminates all the money decks in one swoop. Very few creatures are worth much, so it will be mostly lands and stuff like grindstone that will suffer.
Wouldn't Kitesail Apprentice be a better choice than Steppe Lynx in your Kor list? Or is it just my dislike of non-tribe creatures in a tribal deck getting the best of me?
Yep...one of my favorite old school moves was to Divert my opponents Squirrel's Nest onto my land during the Odyssey days of Squirrel Opposition decks.
Umm...I may be wrong but I don't think a red creature equipped with Blazing Torch can target the Kor Firewalker. I realize the damage is from the Torch and thus colorless but the equipment grants the ability to the red creature which would have to target the Firewalker to use said ability and since the creature is red, the Firewalker would not be a legal target.
True about falling for path, but with all the land fetching out there, it doesn't matter much anyway; in my experience you get to cast for 0 much of the time without it.
You chat under the table during Commander games? Part of the format has a social aspect and by chatting under the table you are removing this experience from the other players. Given information is what people see on the board and in the game chat. PMs lead to hidden information which is used to manipulate and gang up on unfavorable players. While playing EDH in paper, I do not mind chatting under the table because other players can physically see these take place in another room. When you're online, no one else knows what hidden alliances players have set up from the start to the finish.
It seems to me that the large deck aspect of my idea makes it harder for the spikes to just copy a net deck and jump in. It requires some thought and creativity if everyone is forced to run double sized decks. On the other hand I understand your reticence to be a part of something that you dislike doing (building large decks). I once had serious trouble with that too and so I can see where you are coming from. I don't agree that you are a bad deck builder. I think perhaps everyone has room to grow and some of us more than others.
To your solutions: I am more than willing to play Tribalton if that is what everyone wants to do. I don't think taking out noncreature spells is really viable as a format. It would be very neutered and aggro builds would just autodominate.
I dislike Standardton because I really dislike standard. There is a challenge involved but it seems like the really successful decks in standardton mirror the successful decks in standard. Baneslayer is still a key card even in decks that aren't tribal angels. Same goes for half a dozen other cards.
I agree that the problem isn't the players or the decks. I agree that it is the format. But I don't see any easy solution. I see creative and hard solutions. No matter which one we try there will be some pain involved.
As far as your opinion goes, well it matters as much as mine. :)
I think it may be time to change formats. Personally i hate standard, so that is probably not going to work. Though I do love extended. Extended tribal may be the way to go. Discuss...
On the contrary ncnetc, I believe Rene understood my advice and criticism and is very likely to post again. But then I talked to him online too. I don't think giving positive criticism about writing is scary. I think being afraid of criticizing because you think you are too heavily influencing others is scary.
Also Blau's point is interesting and not a criticism on my article at all. I intend to respond to it directly soon.
I am glad YOU don't enjoy fringe formats, because then they would not be fringe. However let us be real here. To each their own eh? I disagree that the whole thing is a vicious cycle but why not discuss it? To shut down the discussion is to close our minds to the possibilities. OK so maybe my solution isn't the answer we need. But it is an answer and we need answers and to think about them. Thank you very much for your comment even though you dissent. Let the discussion continue :D
Sometime you can give critics, and sometime you get it... frankly I must agree completely with blau, it is just another try on casual format for the non pro's... I just don't believe in those formats... at some point when the meta settles everyone is playing the same deck or playing against the same deck. And... then... you are back at the start of your article.
To get back to your remark I really hope that Rene Cueva will write another article, but probably you scared him off... Not everyone is native English speaker/ writer on this site so be a bit more understanding before make such easy remark. Guess we will see what happens!
There is enough redundancy out there that you can play a reasonable number of staple effects without problems.
Smother has similar cards like Nameless Inversion, Terror, Last Gasp, etc.
Similarly Lightning Bolt, Stone Rain, Naturalize, Concentrate, and others all have a similar amount of redundancy that you don't need to worry about common strategies.
It's things like Grindstone, Bridge from Below, and Lightning Rift that get weakened by this kind of restriction.
You also end up with an arbitrarily long banned list that gets into gray areas very quickly. The longer the banned list, the more people will argue or complain about it, and soon you will be spending all your time defending or retracting your banning decisions.
So, Grindstone, Helm, Dark Depths, Earthcraft are all out. What about Lightning Rift, Life from the Loam, Seismic Assault, Thopter Foundry, etc. You can keep going on and on with banning the top combo pieces until you finally decide the format is balanced, but then you're going to have a bunch of people upset with your decisions.
The reason I reccommended a singleton restriction on all non-creature (non-basic land) cards is that it is a simpler way to tone down the power level of non-creature cards without worrying about banning decisions, and encourages people to use creatures more than spells, which I believe is the point of the format.
Indeed I did answer. No. :) I wasn't aware there was someone sharing my surname on that show, which I don't watch. Leicht however is a common name in Austria. (like smith or jones.)
Because it is an artificial constraint. That said I am almost in agreement anyway. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of building room once you remove inevitables from the picture. Otherwise it becomes a narrow game of RPS as type2 and classic usually are. On the other hand does Zombies Rift become dominant if we remove goblins,elves, combo and whatever else we don't like? Stagnancy is the real issue. Not spoilerism which while unpleasant is only a short term phenomenon. (The spoilers will eventually tire of their sport, one assumes.)
An article I wrote with a very quiet comments section. Something has to be wrong with the world.
It depends on how often you attack turn 2 with a geared up lynx vs say a turn 5 lynx with Armament Master in play. Clearly the early beats go to the lynx by a few points of damage, but mid game I think the flying on the kitesail would be key. The damage is no different once an AM is in play equiped.
It feels like poor planning on the part of ShardFenix and Paul Leicht to have two articles about the same topic posted on the same day. There are two arguments going on here in two different places. Seems like a little coordination would have been called for here. But that's not what I want to talk about.
I already posted my thoughts on the subject on Paul's article, but I will kind of repeat myself as well as add on a few more thoughts. As long as this format stays Classic, it will stay over-powered. I have to agree with the other poster that commented that there seems to be some sour grapes here. I have play tested against all of the people mentioned LE, Shard, AJImpy, etc. and their decks ARE overpowered, no matter how you slice it. You can play apologist all you want, and they can post here saying that asking them to lower their power curve would force them to run 20 Grizzly Bears, none of that matters and it's just show for show's sake. Frankly, it's insulting. People got beat at their own game and now their mad. Making the arguement that it is okay for these three to stomp people into the ground, but not okay for people other than them to do it, is asinine.
It's a classic TOURNAMENT, which means you have to expect people to show up with tournament quality decks. That's how Magic works. Think about it logically, if the point wasn't to win, why is there a prize? Unless you're me, most people don't design decks that aren't supposed to win. We're supposed to feel angry at these clan members that showed up and did what tournament players do? So if I showed up and ran the Fish deck, that would be ok, but not if someone who was part of a clan was doing it? I'm sorry that doesn't fly. You want the spikes to go away? Stop offering a prize.
I'd also like to point out that the two people listed here as First, Second, and Third are WEEKLY writers for this site. ArchGenius mentioned that people who show up with casual or budget decks will routinely get crushed by these folks. Look at the cost of some of those decks being played. I am not trying to fault people like LE, but even he himself posted an article where he made a deck for under 10 tickets and tried it out in the casual room. He posted how bad and angry he felt when people were playing much more expensive cards than him that he had no budget answer to. It must be a lot easier to build a deck when MTGOtraders is footing the bill. Nothing says "budget" like running $100 worth of Vindicate. Is LE to blame for that? Heck no! If I was entering a CLASSIC tournament, and I had FoW's and Vindicates, you can bet I would be running them FOR SURE! Why? Because it is a tournament and I want to win!
There was the claim both in this article and in Paul's that Tribal Classic is a "casual" format. I'm looking at those top three decks again and not seeing the casual connection. $100 of Vindicate backed up by $80 of Malestrom Pulse; that's casual? Shard's deck was a TIER ONE standard deck just last year. If that's the definition of casual, then by all means the person who shows up with an actual casual deck should feel outraged. Clearly they were lied to. As for clan members running Fish decks... well too bad. When you run a Classic tournament and people are running expensive, classic tournament staples, you have to expect that the serious players will show up.
So the conclusion of this rant is, if the idea of "fixing" these tournaments is to get the spikes to go away, then stop offering a prize. If the idea that this is a casual tournament and it needs to get back to that, then the solution there is to stop lying to yourself. Check the past 4 months of this article and look at the deck lists. This is NOT a causal format. If you want a real solution to fixing the tournaments so that less busted decks are running around, well then there have been a lot of good solutions (and some impossible ones) posted here and in Paul's article. The real message is the tournament scene will NOT change while you fight to keep the status quo. Real changes have to be made other than just saying clan members shouldn't come.
I hope this post doesn't cost me any MTGO buddies. It sounds kind of mean, but I felt it needed to be said.
Iceage4life wrote in his article, "Getting a lot of lands into play is one of, if not the best way to win consistently in Commander". It's true. I aim at having at least 10 mana by turn 12. I usually run 40 lands plus 5 or so cards that help me fetch lands or improve my draw. Commander is a game of high powered spells, you need the mana to be able to cast those spells effectively. Here are some of the cards I like to use.
40 lands? I usually try and fit in 45 unless the deck is more aggressive/cheap than normal. It helps getting with consistently getting 14 not 10 mana on turn 12.
Uhm... yes, he's right. Forget Blazing Torch, it wasen't a good idea in the first place :). Just replace it with Expedition Map to get your Valakut in time.
I prefer to play Steppe Lynx because of those 8 fetchlands and 3 Adventuring Gears in deck which have great synergy with Steppe Lynx. Surely Armament Master doesn't help the cat, but our aim is to lower our opponent's life total as fast as we can, and Steppe Lynx is better than Kitesail Apprentice for that purpose.
LE
Well, "Anyonymous" - that's why the ghost engine with orb is there.
I think someone eluded towards that earlier.. but the variance in card values could make that a pretty sketchy solution.
Nice catch elambert, I also believe that to be true. Though Valakut could deal with the Kor Firewalkers..
this deck seems well positioned right now since zoo is on the decline and control is on the rise. If zoo/rdw pick back up though this deck has no chance.
Also if peeps start playing the gaeas blessings again, mill loses.
Why not just put a money limit on decks? Ex: no deck can be worth more than 30tix.
That makes combo still possible but very very hard to pull off, and it eliminates all the money decks in one swoop. Very few creatures are worth much, so it will be mostly lands and stuff like grindstone that will suffer.
Wouldn't Kitesail Apprentice be a better choice than Steppe Lynx in your Kor list? Or is it just my dislike of non-tribe creatures in a tribal deck getting the best of me?
Yep...one of my favorite old school moves was to Divert my opponents Squirrel's Nest onto my land during the Odyssey days of Squirrel Opposition decks.
Umm...I may be wrong but I don't think a red creature equipped with Blazing Torch can target the Kor Firewalker. I realize the damage is from the Torch and thus colorless but the equipment grants the ability to the red creature which would have to target the Firewalker to use said ability and since the creature is red, the Firewalker would not be a legal target.
True about falling for path, but with all the land fetching out there, it doesn't matter much anyway; in my experience you get to cast for 0 much of the time without it.
Only an idiot opponent falls for the path to exile / archive trap "trap". Kill the crabs ASAP, don't search your library and mill fails.
You chat under the table during Commander games? Part of the format has a social aspect and by chatting under the table you are removing this experience from the other players. Given information is what people see on the board and in the game chat. PMs lead to hidden information which is used to manipulate and gang up on unfavorable players. While playing EDH in paper, I do not mind chatting under the table because other players can physically see these take place in another room. When you're online, no one else knows what hidden alliances players have set up from the start to the finish.
It seems to me that the large deck aspect of my idea makes it harder for the spikes to just copy a net deck and jump in. It requires some thought and creativity if everyone is forced to run double sized decks. On the other hand I understand your reticence to be a part of something that you dislike doing (building large decks). I once had serious trouble with that too and so I can see where you are coming from. I don't agree that you are a bad deck builder. I think perhaps everyone has room to grow and some of us more than others.
To your solutions: I am more than willing to play Tribalton if that is what everyone wants to do. I don't think taking out noncreature spells is really viable as a format. It would be very neutered and aggro builds would just autodominate.
I dislike Standardton because I really dislike standard. There is a challenge involved but it seems like the really successful decks in standardton mirror the successful decks in standard. Baneslayer is still a key card even in decks that aren't tribal angels. Same goes for half a dozen other cards.
I agree that the problem isn't the players or the decks. I agree that it is the format. But I don't see any easy solution. I see creative and hard solutions. No matter which one we try there will be some pain involved.
As far as your opinion goes, well it matters as much as mine. :)
I think it may be time to change formats. Personally i hate standard, so that is probably not going to work. Though I do love extended. Extended tribal may be the way to go. Discuss...
On the contrary ncnetc, I believe Rene understood my advice and criticism and is very likely to post again. But then I talked to him online too. I don't think giving positive criticism about writing is scary. I think being afraid of criticizing because you think you are too heavily influencing others is scary.
Also Blau's point is interesting and not a criticism on my article at all. I intend to respond to it directly soon.
I am glad YOU don't enjoy fringe formats, because then they would not be fringe. However let us be real here. To each their own eh? I disagree that the whole thing is a vicious cycle but why not discuss it? To shut down the discussion is to close our minds to the possibilities. OK so maybe my solution isn't the answer we need. But it is an answer and we need answers and to think about them. Thank you very much for your comment even though you dissent. Let the discussion continue :D
Paul remember your comment a few days back, for reference;
http://puremtgo.com/articles/cavemans-look#comment-18967
Sometime you can give critics, and sometime you get it... frankly I must agree completely with blau, it is just another try on casual format for the non pro's... I just don't believe in those formats... at some point when the meta settles everyone is playing the same deck or playing against the same deck. And... then... you are back at the start of your article.
To get back to your remark I really hope that Rene Cueva will write another article, but probably you scared him off... Not everyone is native English speaker/ writer on this site so be a bit more understanding before make such easy remark. Guess we will see what happens!
There is enough redundancy out there that you can play a reasonable number of staple effects without problems.
Smother has similar cards like Nameless Inversion, Terror, Last Gasp, etc.
Similarly Lightning Bolt, Stone Rain, Naturalize, Concentrate, and others all have a similar amount of redundancy that you don't need to worry about common strategies.
It's things like Grindstone, Bridge from Below, and Lightning Rift that get weakened by this kind of restriction.
You also end up with an arbitrarily long banned list that gets into gray areas very quickly. The longer the banned list, the more people will argue or complain about it, and soon you will be spending all your time defending or retracting your banning decisions.
So, Grindstone, Helm, Dark Depths, Earthcraft are all out. What about Lightning Rift, Life from the Loam, Seismic Assault, Thopter Foundry, etc. You can keep going on and on with banning the top combo pieces until you finally decide the format is balanced, but then you're going to have a bunch of people upset with your decisions.
The reason I reccommended a singleton restriction on all non-creature (non-basic land) cards is that it is a simpler way to tone down the power level of non-creature cards without worrying about banning decisions, and encourages people to use creatures more than spells, which I believe is the point of the format.
Indeed I did answer. No. :) I wasn't aware there was someone sharing my surname on that show, which I don't watch. Leicht however is a common name in Austria. (like smith or jones.)
Because it is an artificial constraint. That said I am almost in agreement anyway. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of building room once you remove inevitables from the picture. Otherwise it becomes a narrow game of RPS as type2 and classic usually are. On the other hand does Zombies Rift become dominant if we remove goblins,elves, combo and whatever else we don't like? Stagnancy is the real issue. Not spoilerism which while unpleasant is only a short term phenomenon. (The spoilers will eventually tire of their sport, one assumes.)
the problem stealthbadger is that there is a fine line between fixing and neutering the format. Decisions like that do take a lot of time to consider.