Search results

I think the "mill target player" clause is just a more flexible selfmill mode. The few times you actually have enough mill kill your opponent in the late game it's nice to have it.

If anything, a spell heavy deck is still going to have to run some bodies, so having them also be the kind of effects that the spell decks are looking for (ie burn and bounce) you up the consistency of the deck.

Aren't these prone to undo the work a R/x Stromkirk players done though?

That is a good point. If we're pushing vertical aggro, maybe we should look into what disruption we want to run both for and against the vertical guys. Tappers probably does the trick as good as bouncers, to get another hit in, but doesn't hose the decks we'd want to push.

Within red theres also firefist striker and goblin heelcutter. Also, go go team triple stromkirks! I guess blue also has sleep.

I think that hits the nail on the head right. These rules are suggested because they make playing morphs less of a mental burden, and you can approximate the behaviour of a face down morph even without knowing what morph it is, so that people want to keep coming back to the cube.

The way it played out in the decks I had it was a toolbox that could fetch either a card like parallax wave or a removal spell. If you're running a god like keranos, god of storms you can threaten to fetch that a well, because if you land rector your opponent could have to think about how...

curse of predation curse of shallow graves Surprised these haven't been mentioned already! Depending on how the cube looks, I think argothian enchantress, eidolon of blossoms and academy rector are fine as enchantress support. When you move down to lower powered formats I think you can do more...

I think the upside of actually constricting yourself to these rules, is that it gives a feeling and strategic depth to the format, because you can start to think around what kind of creature your opponent's morphed. In KTK, there was a kind of race of who could flip up a morph first just because...

I was humouring my self with the idea of morph cubes, and I think a big thing I think you need to decide on is what turns people should do what. Do you want the same tempo as in tarkir draft, with morphs turn three and unmorphs turn five? What body sizes do you want at different cmc's? I think...

Maybe you could word it like "as long as ~ doesn't have a +1/+1 counter on it, it has shroud" just for clarity? Otherwise, I like the initiative to complete cycles and fill in holes wotc hasn't.

Rector so far has been amazing, so I'm running that more incidentally as a sac support. Cathar is probably the weak link, but I'm surprised you don't like doomed traveler. I've seen it ran in much higher powered lists. I know CML has sung its praise. In regards to the townsfolk, maybe I can...

I was more so thinking of the ability to play sacrifice decks and token decks with the same cards, but probably I can just run raise the alarm and some other 2-3 cmc token maker (I count spectral as a 2WW card) For reference these are the sacdeck-support I'm considering in white (not counting...

I've never said the townsfolks were specifically for the champion, but I get your point. I'll keep my eyes on them. I felt like they'd serve an intersection between the human themes and the token themes, feeding different decks. I'll see if I have other options to consider as well though.

Have you ran any other effects than assault strobe? I haven't had a chance to play any of this, so the UB delver is just a hypothesis. I was thinking of running triple gather the townsfolk but now I'm wondering if that is even necessary.

So I went and looked at how each combination of one drops could give me ideas on how the color pairs play out, so that the themes I give them guides you towards a position where either color's one drop looks inciting. I've been trying to be mindful of things like champion of the parish and...

profaner of the dead silumgar sorcerer Anyone tried any of these? Had any success?

That sounds fair, I can probably let the total equilibrium of the color pairs rest a bit and just live with the fact that blue and green won't really have the same kind of proactive plans, so that I can get completely suprised when some players just goes and 3-0's a UGx aggro deck.

No, I'm convinced its ham handed but I'm sort of sticking to formula. I was originally just going to run 2 raptors, but when I looked at some of the pairs I just didn't find an easy out like UR and WU, where tokens help glue together the delver and other respective one drops. I felt like a deck...

Yeah, I'll try to be wary of that. I'm thinking that by making these 3-offs that showcase what the color partially cares about, drafting a "sweet deck" should naturally lean you towards also being interested in the one drops. My hypothesis is that if for instance black does a bunch of sweet...