Sets [ORI] Magic Origins Spoilers

[Grillo_Parlante]

It doesn't force anyone to make weird decisions.

Yeah, I think that’s the fundamental point we are disagreeing on. You see it as just a goldfish creature, hence the comparison with latch seeker, where as I am struggling to understand why we are seeing it exclusively through that lens.

It’s unfortunate that this discussion gained a nasty tone to it, because it actually is pretty interesting i.m.o., and I would like to continue it. I feel I've been civil so far, and will of course continue to do so, but if you feel tired of the topic I understand and will let it go.

Part of where I am coming from with this card is that when you play delver in pauper, once of the major strategies of that deck is leveraging the perceived pressure from ninja of the deep hours. Its super subtle, and you can play a lot of games with the deck before you pick up on it, but often times the best thing to do with a ninja of the deep hours that is facing down a blocker it could trade with, is to not offer the trade.

The reason is that the perceived pressure from the ninja is so valuable. It’s understood in that format, with that deck, that if ninja connects three or so times you are basically not winning the game. Opponents will get to the point where its correct for them to start attacking, but they have to hold back 1-2 creatures to block, effectively disrupting their gameplan and creating tempo for the delver deck. You can buy multiple turns off of that, save life points, generating extra draw steps, and stealing wins.

I have that relationship come up all the time with ninjutsu creatures in my own cube: how many times can you let okiba-gang shinobi hit you before you basically can't win? It’s a big enough threat where you kind of have to shift your game plan away from winning the game to not losing to okiba-gang shinobi. That’s a really powerful, but subtle, tempo shift, that I love to leverage with aggro decks.

Now, here comes this red 3 drops, the first red three drop in eons that an aggressive red deck can use to similar effect in a powered format, and its being compared with a goldfish creature no one runs, and some midrange demon. I don't understand this.

And maybe there is no communication here, I don't know. If you really are convinced that all you can do with this dude is bash in, then I'm not going to get very far. I'm just saying that, irrespective of your aggro play style, you might be pleasantly surprised by what some of your aggro pilots can do with it. I would certainly view its addition as a breath of fresh air.

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Demonic Pact has won me 3 games and the game I lost to the trigger was the game where I had zero cards in library left :<

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I am convinced all you can do with this dude is bash in. That's really all it does. Giving the opponent counterplay doesn't make a card better, the question is does the increased reward justify the increased counterplay? Sure, you can leverage the Ninja's threat in a game and you should, but if the ninja was unblockable you'd just get your cards and win the game. Maybe I'm underrating the +1/+1 counter, but it doesn't seem worth the amount of counterplay it trades to get it and as such isn't significantly better then that goldfish no one runs while filling an identical niche.

 

[James Stevenson]

Yeah this is a good discussion. Grillo, as always you make good points. I'm very tempted to try acolyte myself, and this thing about perceived pressure is interesting.

FSR, why not try it out? That's the only real way to know. But you don't have to. I know your cube(s) is very unique, and I hate how similar cubes tend to become.

Ravey B, clam down.

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Won the finals with lethal pact trigger.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

GG!

 

[Diakonov]

I love that this intense argument over middling 3-drops is interspersed with MCMcEmcee's anecdotes about crushing people with Demonic Pact

 

[Aoret]

Since we're (sort of) derailing into prerelease tournament reports, I picked black for the pre-pack, opened two off color duals, two big dumb giant green dudes, not enough other green dudes to run them, and a super sick UB control shell that completely lacked finishers. I bounced and owled my way to 2-0 before going 2-2 when I finally had to fight real decks. (Only four rounds-our turnout was shitty because everyone is at comic con)

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Impressions on cards I played with or played against:
Demonic Pact - obviously the best card in the set.
Kothophed, Soul Hoarder - was good but mostly as a big flyer in sealed. Dunno if he will line up well in most cubes- he plays well with cheap removal but is also really bad against cheap removal.
Outland Colossus - I saw this hit someone maybe twice the entire day. Pretty much ate a removal spell immediately every time.
Foundry of the Consuls - solid mana sink. I got to play my 18 land all big dudes and card advantage deck and not flood out often.
Alchemist's Vial - all-star. Actually just solid filler, smoothed out draws and let me punch through with my fatties to race my Pact.
Skysnare Spider - this feels like it was put in the wrong set, I dunno what 6/6 vigilance reach is doing in a set where the small creature payoff is making your 2/2 a 3/3. Also probably not "regular" cube-worthy but probably a sweet finisher in peasant.
Renown creatures - people tried so hard to set these up, ran multiple guys into my Fetid Imps, then lost their sweet upgraded guys to Fleshbag Marauder.
Deadbridge Shaman - mediocre
Fetid Imp - pretty weak. People kept playing pretty poorly into it. Only 2 drop creature I actively wanted in my slow deck.
Shambling Ghoul - probably fine. Was not at all what my deck wanted and it got replaced immediately by the 2nd Alchemist's Vial. Never really felt threatened by it and never really wanted to draw it after the first time I played it.
Rhox Maulers - people tried so hard to make their 2/2s into 3/3s that just get blanked by 4 drops instead of playing 4/4s that are bigger than everything then become 6/6s that are bigger than everything. Also trampling through their small creatures to get the renown trigger or just kill them was good.
Pia and Kiran Nalaar - didn't get to play my copy, didn't play against it. Looked good whenever I saw someone else playing it.
Consul's Lieutenant - is probably good. Is not a 6/6 and doesn't make your 2/2s into 6/6s.
Sentinel of the Eternal Watch - was kinda annoying the two times I played against it. It is very weak to 6/6s getting +2/+2 and fighting it.
Akroan Jailer - one of the worst tappers I've ever played against.
Suppression Bonds - if Faith's Fetters is too powerful for your liking, try this?
Sword of the Animist - I got hit by this 6 times in one game and won very easily.
Demonic Pact - ok seriously this is a fine card even without going out of your way to be able to get it off the board. You just figure out your route to winning the game in the 3 turn window. For me it was removing/faltering their guys and hitting them for 12 a turn. I guess you could try some aggro or burn plan? (incidentally I had 3 of the caterpillar that kills enchantments and played zero of them and never even thought about siding them in)

 

[Jason Waddell]

I would be interested in seeing actual boardstates and comparing how each creature affects the flow of the game.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I am convinced all you can do with this dude is bash in. That's really all it does. Giving the opponent counterplay doesn't make a card better, the question is does the increased reward justify the increased counterplay? Sure, you can leverage the Ninja's threat in a game and you should, but if the ninja was unblockable you'd just get your cards and win the game. Maybe I'm underrating the +1/+1 counter, but it doesn't seem worth the amount of counterplay it trades to get it and as such isn't significantly better then that goldfish no one runs while filling an identical niche.

In all fairness you could be right. Its hard to measure how impactful the threat of being hit by it will be viewed, and if you have a really condensed format you probably would just want to race with it.

In an uncondensed format though, there are a lot of sweet lines of play involving perceived pressure I could see it enabling:

1. You can put it in an interactive R/x tempo shell. Its a relatively cheap body that promises a big hit. The shock trigger and body work nicely for a deck trying to derail an opponent's gameplan, and you probably have some mix of bounce or other interaction to really put an opponent in some awkward spots in regards to blocking.

If the game starts to shift away from you, I think the threat of the hit might be great enough where you can leverage it to effect a return to at least parity with an opponent. I could see this happening in two ways: 1.) you swing in and they are forced to make bad chump blocks because of the perceived threat of the hit, giving you board superiority, alla the abyss effect 2.) You hold it back and they are forced to stall their offensive because of the threat of the hit, giving you time to topdeck your way back into the game.

2. You can put it in an interactive fish shell. Combining the shock trigger with cards like vines of vastwood, ghor-clan rampager, or feat of resistance, its basically the perfect tool to carve out a position of board superiority, by forcing the opponent to choose between the threat of taking increasingly impactful hits, or sacrificing their board to prevent it from happening. The buffs that you use to leverage that threat can also be used to disrupt their removal.

But this all presumes that your format isn't condensed to the point where aggro decks are just executing a narrow assertive gameplan to race to a win. If the format is condensed, I would think 3 mana is too much for a creature that is just a dude, and you would be better of with something like pyreheart wolf or chandra's phoenix.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I was super impressed by the 4/6 vigilance tapper. That thing is ridiculously hard to get rid of, ploughs through most board states with its 4 power and 6 toughness, taps down the most annoying creature each turn, and does offense and defense thanks to vigilance! I think this might actually be good enough in cube, and I'm certain this would have been a rare in the original Ravnica block.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

When I read this, I keep thinking, "Yeah, but if being hit loses them the game, then if you had Latch Seeker you'd just win, because they can't block it." I mean, Acolyte wins games where you need to hit for 7 damage in two swings (or 10/11 damage in three swings and so on) AND the opponent has no creatures they can afford to chump block with, but that seems like a really narrow window of betterness.

(Standard disclaimer for +1/+1 counter, blocking, human, carrying auras/equipment, color, casting cost intensity differences that will sometimes come up)

Really, honestly and truly, the cards do the same thing. Like I said before if Latch Seeker is the power level you are looking at, but you think that card is dumb and you want that kind of creature red, this dude is pretty on target and definitely more interesting

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I was super impressed by the 4/6 vigilance tapper. That thing is ridiculously hard to get rid of, ploughs through most board states with its 4 power and 6 toughness, taps down the most annoying creature each turn, and does offense and defense thanks to vigilance! I think this might actually be good enough in cube, and I'm certain this would have been a rare in the original Ravnica block.

The flavor text though. . . was this posted in the right thread?

She seems pretty playable. Stats and trigger seem bad compared to Frost Titan, but Vigilance is big game. I think there are plenty of cubes you can tap 6 for that even though sometimes you'll feel bad about it.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I was super impressed by the 4/6 vigilance tapper. That thing is ridiculously hard to get rid of, ploughs through most board states with its 4 power and 6 toughness, taps down the most annoying creature each turn, and does offense and defense thanks to vigilance! I think this might actually be good enough in cube, and I'm certain this would have been a rare in the original Ravnica block.

On a scale of 0 - boring how much fun was this card?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

When I read this, I keep thinking, "Yeah, but if being hit loses you the game, then if you had Latch Seeker you'd just win, because they can't block it."

Yeah, and I think thats at least true where:

But this all presumes that your format isn't condensed to the point where aggro decks are just executing a narrow assertive gameplan to race to a win. If the format is condensed, I would think 3 mana is too much for a creature that is just a dude, and you would be better of with something like pyreheart wolf orchandra's phoenix.

In the sort of situations where acolyte is interesting, the aggro deck is shifting roles away from purely racing. The threat of a race or winning the race still matters, but the texture of the game may be becoming such where card advantage or board position is actually more critical. In that situation I can do things with acolyte of the inferno that I could never do with latch seeker. This is because acolyte of the inferno has multiple applications, while latch seeker can only race.

Not every format enables this though. If you have an increased focus on damage, than your aggro decks will be more like sligh, there won't be time for interactive elements, and the latch seeker comparison makes a lot of sense to me. However, if your aggro decks have time to interact, sometimes the correct line (rather than simply losing) is to actually build and maintain a board presence into the mid and possibly late game. This may mean shifting roles from being a purely beat down deck to taking on a more controlling role, and Acolyte of the inferno has lots of interesting uses with various interactive pieces in that scenario. Latch seeker, on the other hand, can never make that transition, and you just lose.

Though to be blunt, its not so much that I care about Acolyte of the inferno (or even plan on running him) as it is that I hate sligh aggro, and this seems like a welcome step away from that towards more interactive aggro decks, even if I dislike the 3cc cost.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

On a scale of 0 - boring how much fun was this card?

It was cast against me, and it was actually interesting. 4/6 doesn't kill you on the spot, like, say, a 6/6 Frost Titan would, but it's definitely big and annoying enough that it needs to be dealt with sooner or later. It also works on defense when you can't profitably attack, unlike Frost Titan, which has to attack. I had an equipment lying around that meant I could guide the tap ability a bit, which was also interesting. The tap ability is also very flexible, and I imagine changing your targets around to suit your needs is pretty satisfying. Like I said, it definitely impressed me, and boring cards usually don't! (Though what we define as boring might differ from one person to the next.)

 

[MCMcEmcee]

On a scale of 0 - boring how much fun was this card?

I'd guess that it is much better in general than it was against my deck of all creatures that it can't block.

Doesn't really seem too powerful, but yeah not really the most interesting card. It's good against a singular flyer/big creature and pretty poor against multiples of either. I guess it can race a small flyer.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

The only way in which Acolyte generates threat is if him hitting the opponent wins the game. If him hitting the opponent doesn't win the game, then he isn't threatening. Acolyte only has one application: making the opponents life go down. He can never transition to any other role because he literally can't do anything else! Except block, but Latch Seeker does that too.

With either card you want to attack him them if it will hit the opponent's life or create a favorable resource exchange if they want to protect their life total AND you don't need to block. This is completely independent of the format they are being played in: its the pure functionality of the cards. If you are trying to do something else, you should be playing a different card.

Basically, if doing damage is valuable, its better to be doing damage then threatening to do damage. If doing damage isn't valuable, there is no threat. Acolyte gives you a reward for hitting and in some circumstances that makes it better, but its not a quality you can leverage in a meaningful way.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The only way in which Acolyte generates threat is if him hitting the opponent wins the game. If him hitting the opponent doesn't win the game, then he isn't threatening. Acolyte only has one application: making the opponents life go down. He can never transition to any other role because he literally can't do anything else!....
Basically, if doing damage is valuable, its better to be doing damage then threatening to do damage.

1. The perception of the hit being critical to the game is what you are leveraging. The least subtle example of this I can muster is fabled hero, a card which people will--correctly--contort themselves into circles to prevent being hit by, regardless of how bad it is for them to do so. This sort of relationship exists for at least infect, double strike, heroic, and some of the ninjutsu creatures, sometimes to a much more subtle degree.

2. The shock effect triggers before damage is resolved, which means that acolyte interacts favorably with the board. If we can't even acknowledge that this represents a fundimental difference between the two cards, and that the basic text of the card allows it to do more than just take an opponent's life, I think we may have hit a wall.

3. Sure, until it isn't. Sometimes its better for the opponent to lose multiple creatures to an Acolyte, because they are afraid of being hit by it. However, if you are on a sligh game plan that won't be true, since you are emphasizing damage output over all else.

At any rate, I think we've hit the point where we are going in circles, and its probably best to just let the conversation go.

 

[safra]

at my prerelease, this place is awful and full of shitty non casuals (they still suck though so I'm 2-0)

 

[FlowerSunRain]

1) If its the correct choice, its never "bad for them to do so". At worst is was meaningless because they weren't going to win either way. If the correct choice is to block, they can actually make it if they are being attacked by Acolyte. They can't when being attacked by Latch Seeker. Infect, Doublestrike, Heroic, Ninjajitsu all force blocks because if they aren't blocked, it would move the game in a direction where the opponent wins. The reason people are blocking is because getting hit is worse! If you could just hit them, that would be better, because that's the actual goal. If it wasn't, they'd just let you hit them. The ball is in their court.

2) Acolyte's thing only takes effect if it is blocked, so in the subset of situations "creature gets blocked", Acolyte is theoretically better then Latch Seeker. However, Latch Seeker can't be blocked, that comparison never comes up. Unless you are using a lure effect or some weird corner case that I can't think of, Latch Seekers blocking related text is just plain better. Latch Seeker's text effects the board more then Acolyte, because it doesn't just make blocks bad, it makes them impossible.

3) You can't force them to block. If its better for you if they block, they'll take it. In this case Acolyte is potentially better, because it gets a counter that has a chance of being relevant later in the game. If its better for them to take it, they'll block. Except they can't block Latch Seeker, so in these situations its always the superior card.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Why are you guys still arguing? Is there any doubt about which of these two colors is actually in the market for a hard to block "3/1"? Or are you just arguing because someone is wrong on the internet? You are going around in circles guys, and frankly the discussion is missing the entire point.

Anyone interested in a noninteractive, color intensive, aggressive three-drop in blue? No?
Anyone interested in an interactive, splashable, aggressive three-drop in red? Maybe?

 

[yan]

its up on cubetutor

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

1) If its the correct choice, its never "bad for them to do so". At worst is was meaningless because they weren't going to win either way. If the correct choice is to block, they can actually make it if they are being attacked by Acolyte. They can't when being attacked by Latch Seeker. Infect, Doublestrike, Heroic, Ninjajitsu all force blocks because if they aren't blocked, it would move the game in a direction where the opponent wins. The reason people are blocking is because getting hit is worse! If you could just hit them, that would be better, because that's the actual goal. If it wasn't, they'd just let you hit them. The ball is in their court.

Right, this is why its perceived pressure, rather than objective pressure. Infect, doublestrike, heroic, ninjustsu don't force blocks. They may or may not force the game in a direction where the opponent wins. The opponent perceives the potential pressure from the hit, and makes a judgement call as to whether blocking is better or worse. Sometimes its better, sometimes its not. The nature of that pressure can be subtle: thats why I provided a format specific example of the card draw from ninja of the deep hours.

This is also why I stated that you could ultimately be right, because if people don't respect the potential of the hit, or the impact of having a 4/2 with an auto-shock trigger rampaging the board, than much of that game of hidden information won't matter. However, until people play with the card, its impossible to know, and it would be a shame to just dismiss it on the basis of a false equivalency. An aggressive red 3 drop with a built in removal trigger seems like the type of aggro-control card I would like to see more of.

2) Acolyte's thing only takes effect if it is blocked, so in the subset of situations "creature gets blocked", Acolyte is theoretically better then Latch Seeker. However, Latch Seeker can't be blocked, that comparison never comes up. Unless you are using a lure effect or some weird corner case that I can't think of, Latch Seekers blocking related text is just plain better. Latch Seeker's text effects the board more then Acolyte, because it doesn't just make blocks bad, it makes them impossible.

Right, this is why I think we have hit a point where communication is maybe futile. Lets not be absurd here. Latch seeker effects the board more by not effecting the board at all? Its commitment to non-interactivity shows how much more interactive it is?

Even if this were logical, you're still approaching aggro (and these cards) as if damage maximization is the end-all strategy. Here is the problem with that comparison: it is not always strictly better to maximize damage output in an aggro deck. At least not in a healthy format. Sligh is a count to 20 deck, a necessary evil in condensed formats, that executes its plan within a narrow window, and if it can't do that it just losses the game. This is why no one is jamming latch seeker in their cube, or making arguments that its better than vendilion clique.

3) You can't force them to block. If its better for you if they block, they'll take it. In this case Acolyte is potentially better, because it gets a counter that has a chance of being relevant later in the game. If its better for them to take it, they'll block. Except they can't block Latch Seeker, so in these situations its always the superior card.

The way this actually plays out in a real game is much more complicated because there is a lot of hidden information involved, as well as personal evaluations of the significance of each potential line of play, and personal evauations of the direction the game is likely to turn. Quite simply, a lot of opportunities for a player to make a mistake, which is something we are all trying to encourage in our cubes. Latch Seeker (or rather, the hypothetical red latch seeker), again, is only superior in the sense of its ability to maximize damage potential in a deck I don't want in my cube.

Actually, you know what, I take back what I said about not wanting to run the card. Any red three drop that can introduce that amount of decision making complexity in a simple attack is probably something that I should be running.

You are going around in circles guys, and frankly the discussion is missing the entire point.

Yeah, I agree. Saw your post after I posted, but removing myself from the debate I think. I do feel like we are going in circle.