I played against it once and not lose, but even with that I still think its a viable card, but I think I would only play it if i have at least 2 or another way to mill
also, it is good against the slower, bomby 5c decks that cycle for lands alot
a typical deck has about 1 or 2 borderposts (although not ALL the time)
if theres 2, then theres probably only 15 lands left, 14 if he plays multiple (above 2) land cyclers
assuming he plays out 7 lands in the game, theres 7 lands left. minus the 4 from mind funeral, there would be 3 lands left, less if panoramas where used. so another mind funeral or a mill alternative would usually seal the game.
I havent played it myself, but honestly, it is not flat out terrible.
So funny... Even with the admittance of MF winning the game for him, he still denies it respect. I think I've heard enough personal experiences to seal the deal. Has anyone faced this card and NOT lost? Anyone?
I recently drafted BOTH of these cards in my deck. I have drafted Nemesis before and played against it many times. Almost every time I've been against it or played it it has won the game (of course, these games were not too one-sided at the point when it came into play).
As for MF, beside Nemesis it is very silly. There is not a very good chance of having both considering you are often hunting for one or the other (I don't feel like getting the calc out for the odds). There is no doubt that MF could end it a turn earlier, but it may also hit 4 land and be a waste. I would much rather take my turn 4 to put out a creature that will be guaranteed to stall in order to deck them on draws. Now since we see that its not that useful with nemesis, it can be noted that its not useful unless you have nemesis (in which case, we just saw its not all that useful). On its own, MF will just slow you down and let the opponent know what he is more likely to draw along with perhaps being able to unearth.
In all, its just not needed and it takes up the spot for a more playable card.
Having said all of this, when I drafted both, I ended up winning a game with MF. It was a fluke though because we got in a creature stall that saw us both at >10 creatures then I drew MF and ended it.
Many players claim that they do not like to play swiss because of time constraints. The fact is that if you plan on winning all your rounds in a 4-3-2-2 then you are looking at more or less the same amount of play time as a swiss. If you think about it the only round that may take a little more time in a swiss is the second round. The first round of a 4-3-2-2 has 4 matches just like a swiss. The second round you may end up waiting a few minutes while players with losses finish their matches. The third round does not take any longer because there is no need to wait around for the other matches to finish. Now if you lose first or second round consistently in a 4-3-2-2 than yes I agree, swiss does take much longer.
Kinda happy my xbox wasnt functional when this was released since otherwise I would probably gone ahead and bought it straight away. There's way too many bad calls done with this game to make it appealing to the veteran gamer imo but sure if new players gets into the real thing because of it im all thumbs up.
Those were my thoughts exactly, but the dude went on to win the whole thing, so Idk. He had stuff like Scepter of Fugue, and Dominance, and a bunch of A-hole cards, if ya know what I mean. Just wanted to kill that guy.. lol
I agree. I don't care so much about the bombs as I do the terrible mana fixing compared to RGD. RGD you could (and should) draft 3-4 bounce lands every draft and that by itself leads to excellent mana bases. I was really good at RGD and had an awesome time drafting that, but ACR consistently leads to frustration for me so I've stopped wasting my money on it.
Can't believe you haven't commented on the AI ... are you strictly playing this game vs other humans? It's as bad as Shandalar was, with no concept of game state and only a minimal grasp of defensive playing (and I'm talking about the difficulty cranked up to Planeswalker). The only way the AI can provide a challenge is by obnoxiously cranking up its own topdecks (play a red deck vs Chandra and her first two plays will be Dragon Claws).
"My 4th land was on the very bottom."
So you had 12 sources in play (well, likely at least 10 sources in play, assuming a couple in hand), somehow hadn't managed to kill him yet, and he *still* had to hit a roughly 1/5 shot (with four lands out of ~20 cards, the odds that the bottom card is a land are about 1/5; if it's not, you win, per your comment) to win the game there. I'll grant that it might have given him an out that he couldn't conceivably have had otherwise, but that's still a pretty immense long shot of a situation.
Congrats on the win, and thanks for leaving out my stupidity regarding Anathemancer.
For the record and in regard to his format-warping, It wasn't until that top 4 round that I saw him played at all ... now maybe I wasn't the only one dumb enough to take him out after hearing about the banning (without checking the DATE it goes into effect), but I can't really see the argument for banning him at all. There's supposed to be a downside to playing nonbasics (pain of shocklands aside). Either of our decks could have easily been built using basics and slightly slower Panaorama fetches. And banning Bloodbraid Elf?? The format IS still supposed to have bombs you know. Pure is played far more than either, and I have yet to hear anyone complain about it, or Oversoul for that matter who is nigh unstoppable in the format.
I suppose I'd rather see Anathemancer gone than Pillars, which I know the mobs have been clamoring for ... but banning is such an extreme measure, I'd like to see more detailed arguments rather than just hammering every house we have.
Nope.. I was about to alpha strike next turn for the win, and I had about 15-20 cards in my deck. I was playing a Naya-Jund build with lots of fixing and a little draw, it was around turn 10-15, and he had slowly kept me from attacking with some early removal and then dropping a few blockers that were just too much for me to risk alpha striking early. I can't recall the exact creature's but it doesn't really matter.
He ended up top decking it and decked me. My 4th land was on the very bottom. The deck only ran 16, but as I mentioned it had plenty of fixing, so if you think about it, it can wreck a deck with alot of fixing on approximately turn 10-15.
I should have put the sentence, "This was almost my first case where M10 combat rules would have altered the result of a play, but not quite," as the last sentence in the previous line, above the image. You read it as being about the upcoming play, when I meant it about the previous play.
I should have said, "He does have the Ethersworn Shieldmage and I'm forced to trade without even gaining life. This was almost my first case where M10 combat rules would have altered the result of a play, but not quite."
Because his creatures could not actually be damaged by my lifelinked Qasali Pridemage, it didn't actually matter whether or not I sacrificed the Pridemage with damage on the stack or not. If there had been a gang block by artifact creatures able to take damage, then M10 rules would have changed the result of the play.
I want to see a screen shot in order to disect the game, and point out all the reasons why MF may have won the game, but that nearly any other card played would have brought similiar if not better results - which I believe to be true in any situation where a game is won with MF.
"I would be really interested for one of the pro-MF's to post a screenshot of a game that they have won with MF."
Why even encourage this? To re-use my poker analogy, it's like asking a poker player who is convinced 93 suited is a quality hand to posts hands where it won, but none where it didn't. "See? Here it hit a flush, and here it flopped trips! It's a great hand!" All cherry picking does is validate and encourage the selective memory underlying the poor card evaluation.
I agree with MConstant here, some of the best new MTG writing on the net. It's not just a draft walkthrough where you have to read the tea leaves to figure out what the author is doing. In particular, the mulligan and play analysis is great.
Godot is raising the bar for article content and preparation.
For Stillmoon Cavalier I once said that it is the second best creature in the format. But I don't think that it is worth banning. The list of cards that can deal with it is actually very long starting with a simple Assault/Battery.
Gruul decks have no problem with it at all and all their cards can kill it, Doran turns it into a harmless nice 1/X, and Snakeform is also another option for decks that aren't Gruul and don't have Doran (Bant for example).
So while powerful, Stillmoon Cavalier is a card that can be dealt with. You just have to keep it in mind when building your decks.
Out of curiosity, what was the game state like when you lost to it? IE: what turn was it, life totals, creatures on board and cards in hand? Would you opponent probably have won in a few turns if he had drawn an average creature with some form of evasion?
I have been defeated because of this card and can say from personal experience that there isn't a more humiliating loss in all of ACR drafting. It will make you want to reach across the table and strangle your opponent. For that reason, I think it deserves a little more respect.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the weekend tournaments. I would have played in them but I had family commitments. I'm very interested in both formats and it's interesting to hear your perspective on those formats.
One small critique is that some of your play-by-play feels a bit rushed. For example:
"Now this is where this game gets weird. He made about 3 misplays which he even admitted afterwards cost him the game involving attacking and other stuff."
This part was a bit annoying to read because it's like you're saying something interesting happened but I'm not going to tell you what it was.
I played against it once and not lose, but even with that I still think its a viable card, but I think I would only play it if i have at least 2 or another way to mill
also, it is good against the slower, bomby 5c decks that cycle for lands alot
a typical deck has about 1 or 2 borderposts (although not ALL the time)
if theres 2, then theres probably only 15 lands left, 14 if he plays multiple (above 2) land cyclers
assuming he plays out 7 lands in the game, theres 7 lands left. minus the 4 from mind funeral, there would be 3 lands left, less if panoramas where used. so another mind funeral or a mill alternative would usually seal the game.
I havent played it myself, but honestly, it is not flat out terrible.
So funny... Even with the admittance of MF winning the game for him, he still denies it respect. I think I've heard enough personal experiences to seal the deal. Has anyone faced this card and NOT lost? Anyone?
I recently drafted BOTH of these cards in my deck. I have drafted Nemesis before and played against it many times. Almost every time I've been against it or played it it has won the game (of course, these games were not too one-sided at the point when it came into play).
As for MF, beside Nemesis it is very silly. There is not a very good chance of having both considering you are often hunting for one or the other (I don't feel like getting the calc out for the odds). There is no doubt that MF could end it a turn earlier, but it may also hit 4 land and be a waste. I would much rather take my turn 4 to put out a creature that will be guaranteed to stall in order to deck them on draws. Now since we see that its not that useful with nemesis, it can be noted that its not useful unless you have nemesis (in which case, we just saw its not all that useful). On its own, MF will just slow you down and let the opponent know what he is more likely to draw along with perhaps being able to unearth.
In all, its just not needed and it takes up the spot for a more playable card.
Having said all of this, when I drafted both, I ended up winning a game with MF. It was a fluke though because we got in a creature stall that saw us both at >10 creatures then I drew MF and ended it.
Many players claim that they do not like to play swiss because of time constraints. The fact is that if you plan on winning all your rounds in a 4-3-2-2 then you are looking at more or less the same amount of play time as a swiss. If you think about it the only round that may take a little more time in a swiss is the second round. The first round of a 4-3-2-2 has 4 matches just like a swiss. The second round you may end up waiting a few minutes while players with losses finish their matches. The third round does not take any longer because there is no need to wait around for the other matches to finish. Now if you lose first or second round consistently in a 4-3-2-2 than yes I agree, swiss does take much longer.
I did mention that you can turn up the difficulty if you wanted more of a challenge.
Kinda happy my xbox wasnt functional when this was released since otherwise I would probably gone ahead and bought it straight away. There's way too many bad calls done with this game to make it appealing to the veteran gamer imo but sure if new players gets into the real thing because of it im all thumbs up.
Those were my thoughts exactly, but the dude went on to win the whole thing, so Idk. He had stuff like Scepter of Fugue, and Dominance, and a bunch of A-hole cards, if ya know what I mean. Just wanted to kill that guy.. lol
I agree. I don't care so much about the bombs as I do the terrible mana fixing compared to RGD. RGD you could (and should) draft 3-4 bounce lands every draft and that by itself leads to excellent mana bases. I was really good at RGD and had an awesome time drafting that, but ACR consistently leads to frustration for me so I've stopped wasting my money on it.
Wow, i'm blind. I triple checked it too but hey...
Can't believe you haven't commented on the AI ... are you strictly playing this game vs other humans? It's as bad as Shandalar was, with no concept of game state and only a minimal grasp of defensive playing (and I'm talking about the difficulty cranked up to Planeswalker). The only way the AI can provide a challenge is by obnoxiously cranking up its own topdecks (play a red deck vs Chandra and her first two plays will be Dragon Claws).
"My 4th land was on the very bottom."
So you had 12 sources in play (well, likely at least 10 sources in play, assuming a couple in hand), somehow hadn't managed to kill him yet, and he *still* had to hit a roughly 1/5 shot (with four lands out of ~20 cards, the odds that the bottom card is a land are about 1/5; if it's not, you win, per your comment) to win the game there. I'll grant that it might have given him an out that he couldn't conceivably have had otherwise, but that's still a pretty immense long shot of a situation.
jk
Congrats on the win, and thanks for leaving out my stupidity regarding Anathemancer.
For the record and in regard to his format-warping, It wasn't until that top 4 round that I saw him played at all ... now maybe I wasn't the only one dumb enough to take him out after hearing about the banning (without checking the DATE it goes into effect), but I can't really see the argument for banning him at all. There's supposed to be a downside to playing nonbasics (pain of shocklands aside). Either of our decks could have easily been built using basics and slightly slower Panaorama fetches. And banning Bloodbraid Elf?? The format IS still supposed to have bombs you know. Pure is played far more than either, and I have yet to hear anyone complain about it, or Oversoul for that matter who is nigh unstoppable in the format.
I suppose I'd rather see Anathemancer gone than Pillars, which I know the mobs have been clamoring for ... but banning is such an extreme measure, I'd like to see more detailed arguments rather than just hammering every house we have.
BTW the entire event's decklistings are up:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/decks/mol4...
I'm totally new to classic. Figured out prices for the top 8 decks from this event (based on marlonbot). They are as follows:
1st - Matkel - Zoo - 301.15 tix
2nd - DynamicDoogle - Affinity - 118.03 tix
3rd - AthosTheMusketeer - Merfolk - 491.66 tix
4th - LalauWBA - Black/Green (?) - 330.19 tix
5th - Wizard not of the Coast - Zoo - 316.91 tix
6th - rukcus - Aggro Loam - 552.45 tix
7th - Javasci - Blue/Black (?) - 742.35 tix
8th - Winston Smith - Tendrils - 429.39 tix
This is simply not true.. I had complete dominance over the board as far as number of creatures, and I was simply holding off for an alpha strike.
Nope.. I was about to alpha strike next turn for the win, and I had about 15-20 cards in my deck. I was playing a Naya-Jund build with lots of fixing and a little draw, it was around turn 10-15, and he had slowly kept me from attacking with some early removal and then dropping a few blockers that were just too much for me to risk alpha striking early. I can't recall the exact creature's but it doesn't really matter.
He ended up top decking it and decked me. My 4th land was on the very bottom. The deck only ran 16, but as I mentioned it had plenty of fixing, so if you think about it, it can wreck a deck with alot of fixing on approximately turn 10-15.
I'm surprised that you didn't play against hypergenesis combo in the 100 card singleton tournament. Its all I play against in the queues now.
I should have put the sentence, "This was almost my first case where M10 combat rules would have altered the result of a play, but not quite," as the last sentence in the previous line, above the image. You read it as being about the upcoming play, when I meant it about the previous play.
I should have said, "He does have the Ethersworn Shieldmage and I'm forced to trade without even gaining life. This was almost my first case where M10 combat rules would have altered the result of a play, but not quite."
Because his creatures could not actually be damaged by my lifelinked Qasali Pridemage, it didn't actually matter whether or not I sacrificed the Pridemage with damage on the stack or not. If there had been a gang block by artifact creatures able to take damage, then M10 rules would have changed the result of the play.
I want to see a screen shot in order to disect the game, and point out all the reasons why MF may have won the game, but that nearly any other card played would have brought similiar if not better results - which I believe to be true in any situation where a game is won with MF.
"I would be really interested for one of the pro-MF's to post a screenshot of a game that they have won with MF."
Why even encourage this? To re-use my poker analogy, it's like asking a poker player who is convinced 93 suited is a quality hand to posts hands where it won, but none where it didn't. "See? Here it hit a flush, and here it flopped trips! It's a great hand!" All cherry picking does is validate and encourage the selective memory underlying the poor card evaluation.
I agree with MConstant here, some of the best new MTG writing on the net. It's not just a draft walkthrough where you have to read the tea leaves to figure out what the author is doing. In particular, the mulligan and play analysis is great.
Godot is raising the bar for article content and preparation.
For Stillmoon Cavalier I once said that it is the second best creature in the format. But I don't think that it is worth banning. The list of cards that can deal with it is actually very long starting with a simple Assault/Battery.
Gruul decks have no problem with it at all and all their cards can kill it, Doran turns it into a harmless nice 1/X, and Snakeform is also another option for decks that aren't Gruul and don't have Doran (Bant for example).
So while powerful, Stillmoon Cavalier is a card that can be dealt with. You just have to keep it in mind when building your decks.
And congrats again.
LE
Out of curiosity, what was the game state like when you lost to it? IE: what turn was it, life totals, creatures on board and cards in hand? Would you opponent probably have won in a few turns if he had drawn an average creature with some form of evasion?
I have been defeated because of this card and can say from personal experience that there isn't a more humiliating loss in all of ACR drafting. It will make you want to reach across the table and strangle your opponent. For that reason, I think it deserves a little more respect.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the weekend tournaments. I would have played in them but I had family commitments. I'm very interested in both formats and it's interesting to hear your perspective on those formats.
One small critique is that some of your play-by-play feels a bit rushed. For example:
"Now this is where this game gets weird. He made about 3 misplays which he even admitted afterwards cost him the game involving attacking and other stuff."
This part was a bit annoying to read because it's like you're saying something interesting happened but I'm not going to tell you what it was.
Anyway, congrats again on the win.