I don't know why they bother with all of these pillowfort cards in these colors. It's been done to death by now.
The deck was created by Commander Rules Committee head Sheldon Menery, who loves effects and decks like this. It was bound to happen on his first project.
Sheldon's creativity and format insight never fail to disappoint
Agreed.
Theyre hes got some interesting concepts, but thats really all they are.
Like the giving resources to opponents as a way to wheel and deal works in theory, but practice is far different. They wont kill you with those resources sure, but youre helping them kill you with different ones. A lot of people also see those effects helping push one person and end up annoyed with you enough to target you exclusively instead.
Designing a whole deck around his favored concepts just feels like it misses the mark.
Politics needs to happen naturally, it cant be forced.
They're pretty annoying. Maybe the political aspect works with players I haven't played with much before, but with people I play with regularly, it's all pointless.
I remember playing Pheldagriff, and thinking "I'll pick an opponent, and if they win, I'll consider it a victory." Except, they always won. Every. Single. Time. And it was boring, frustrating, and annoying. Group hug and pillowfort decks are the worst.
Theyre hes got some interesting concepts, but thats really all they are.
Like the giving resources to opponents as a way to wheel and deal works in theory, but practice is far different. They wont kill you with those resources sure, but youre helping them kill you with different ones. A lot of people also see those effects helping push one person and end up annoyed with you enough to target you exclusively instead.
Designing a whole deck around his favored concepts just feels like it misses the mark.
Politics needs to happen naturally, it cant be forced.
I'm not sure it's political so much as asymmetrically benefiting yourself. It's like an entire deck devoted to the concept of goad - everybody gets strong stuff, but it can't be used against you.
The Silverquill deck plays out like Curse of Opulence - one of my favorite red cards - writ large, and I'm really starting to come around on it. I don't care if anyone else benefits as long as I benefit more, and have answers to boot.
Theyre hes got some interesting concepts, but thats really all they are.
Like the giving resources to opponents as a way to wheel and deal works in theory, but practice is far different. They wont kill you with those resources sure, but youre helping them kill you with different ones. A lot of people also see those effects helping push one person and end up annoyed with you enough to target you exclusively instead.
Designing a whole deck around his favored concepts just feels like it misses the mark.
Politics needs to happen naturally, it cant be forced.
I'm not sure it's political so much as asymmetrically benefiting yourself. It's like an entire deck devoted to the concept of goad - everybody gets strong stuff, but it can't be used against you.
The Silverquill deck plays out like Curse of Opulence - one of my favorite red cards - writ large, and I'm really starting to come around on it. I don't care if anyone else benefits as long as I benefit more, and have answers to boot.
Idk man. I understand the concept but my dirwlect experiences with that sort of thing is that while sure, other players will die, but theyll spend less resources doing it because theyre not worried about you. Meaning you then eat a hoof, or an infinite damage loop, or lose to lab man.
In my experience, this playstyle's successes are a direct result of a player's ability, even more than most. Players who are particularly skilled at leveraging political/pillowfort/etc effects can use their own negotiation/manipulation/deception to create wins in situations others can't. Which, come to think of it, is really in flavor for Silverquill. I agree with you that playing politics needs to be natural, but I definitely see some uses for some of these cards, Nils in particular. I can't wait to convince my friends that I'm helping them then clearing everything with a Dusk or something similar. In casual circles, I've had the most success with these types of decks, so I'm really interested in this deck.
Politics works in general.
In a 4 player game you can always make some contracts and if you "know" the person is more often than not honoring them, you can make plays that benefit both, so its in everyones favor to do it (like having someone counter something if they promise not to attack them as a backstab for X turns, that deal might be totally fine for both).
These cards here dont benefit you more for being good at politics, they incentivize you to do it in the first place, as some are notoriously bad and making deals that benefit both parties, so a card that provides them with the contract on a card design basis works for them (and teaches them what they could be doing to convince an opponent into doing something that benefits them, even if they play just normal cards).
Idk man. I understand the concept but my dirwlect experiences with that sort of thing is that while sure, other players will die, but theyll spend less resources doing it because theyre not worried about you. Meaning you then eat a hoof, or an infinite damage loop, or lose to lab man.
Hmm, I wonder how competitive your groups/meta are? My gut says that more hawkishly competitive games are not great for any degree of political play (nor is it a playstyle for hawkishly competitive players since it isn't foolproof and tends to be less effective with relative strangers). My groups are all quite casual and typically more experimental/conceptual so we rarely even see Hooves/infinite loops/Lab Maniacs to begin with, plus we all know each other pretty well which in my opinion really enable the inter-player gamesmanship outside the cards themselves. I know their tells, I know how to leverage different board states and game relationships (who attacked who, which player is signaling concern about another deck, etc), I know when to deal and when to doublecross. But that certainly isn't something every game or group will support.
In a way, it's like the way some people talk about poker, that the real skill is not in playing the game but in playing other players. The difference for me is that MtG is so much more complex that you have a host of different variables to test other players with and glean their predictability and therefore their leverage points.
Since you and the opponent do it, I think it means "Your" as in you guys, or collectively all of you, if that makes sense.
Also, I am very happy Magister of Worth got reprinted. I love that card and I am excited to see its return.
They're pretty annoying. Maybe the political aspect works with players I haven't played with much before, but with people I play with regularly, it's all pointless.
I remember playing Pheldagriff, and thinking "I'll pick an opponent, and if they win, I'll consider it a victory." Except, they always won. Every. Single. Time. And it was boring, frustrating, and annoying. Group hug and pillowfort decks are the worst.
I'm not sure it's political so much as asymmetrically benefiting yourself. It's like an entire deck devoted to the concept of goad - everybody gets strong stuff, but it can't be used against you.
The Silverquill deck plays out like Curse of Opulence - one of my favorite red cards - writ large, and I'm really starting to come around on it. I don't care if anyone else benefits as long as I benefit more, and have answers to boot.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Idk man. I understand the concept but my dirwlect experiences with that sort of thing is that while sure, other players will die, but theyll spend less resources doing it because theyre not worried about you. Meaning you then eat a hoof, or an infinite damage loop, or lose to lab man.
Politics works in general.
In a 4 player game you can always make some contracts and if you "know" the person is more often than not honoring them, you can make plays that benefit both, so its in everyones favor to do it (like having someone counter something if they promise not to attack them as a backstab for X turns, that deal might be totally fine for both).
These cards here dont benefit you more for being good at politics, they incentivize you to do it in the first place, as some are notoriously bad and making deals that benefit both parties, so a card that provides them with the contract on a card design basis works for them (and teaches them what they could be doing to convince an opponent into doing something that benefits them, even if they play just normal cards).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Hmm, I wonder how competitive your groups/meta are? My gut says that more hawkishly competitive games are not great for any degree of political play (nor is it a playstyle for hawkishly competitive players since it isn't foolproof and tends to be less effective with relative strangers). My groups are all quite casual and typically more experimental/conceptual so we rarely even see Hooves/infinite loops/Lab Maniacs to begin with, plus we all know each other pretty well which in my opinion really enable the inter-player gamesmanship outside the cards themselves. I know their tells, I know how to leverage different board states and game relationships (who attacked who, which player is signaling concern about another deck, etc), I know when to deal and when to doublecross. But that certainly isn't something every game or group will support.
In a way, it's like the way some people talk about poker, that the real skill is not in playing the game but in playing other players. The difference for me is that MtG is so much more complex that you have a host of different variables to test other players with and glean their predictability and therefore their leverage points.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains