Ummm, Just letting everyone here know, I re-discovered some really sick tech against the Aura deck. Its literally so good that I think it was engineered 8+ years ago, because they knew that GW Hexproof Aura-Tron would be a deck, and RDW would struggle vs it.
I only ask one thing, If you make it to the point where you do a tourney report or perhaps deck tech, to just mention me, not even give me full credit, just be like, pyro314 reminded us all of this sweet tech.
Nice, although I feel it's a little linear since it doesn't do much against any other deck than the aura build. While I do play a couple Shattering Spree to hate out Affinity specifically, I feel that it's worth it since Affinity is a much more heavily played deck right now.
Nice, although I feel it's a little linear since it doesn't do much against any other deck than the aura build. While I do play a couple Shattering Spree to hate out Affinity specifically, I feel that it's worth it since Affinity is a much more heavily played deck right now.
Problem with a card like that is the mana cost will be to high. If Leyline is a problem in your meta make sure to have more enchantment hate ready in your SB.
Problem with a card like that is the mana cost will be to high. If Leyline is a problem in your meta make sure to have more enchantment hate ready in your SB.
Can someone take a minute to explain to me everyones fascination with bump in the night? I get that life loss is better than damage dealt, but how often does that come up these days? With the inability to ever flash it back in this deck it just seems like a lava spike thats harder to cast.
Can someone take a minute to explain to me everyones fascination with bump in the night? I get that life loss is better than damage dealt, but how often does that come up these days? With the inability to ever flash it back in this deck it just seems like a lava spike thats harder to cast.
Can someone take a minute to explain to me everyones fascination with bump in the night? I get that life loss is better than damage dealt, but how often does that come up these days? With the inability to ever flash it back in this deck it just seems like a lava spike thats harder to cast.
It's a lava spike. 3 damage for 1 mana and one card. That is insanely good.
Can someone take a minute to explain to me everyones fascination with bump in the night? I get that life loss is better than damage dealt, but how often does that come up these days? With the inability to ever flash it back in this deck it just seems like a lava spike thats harder to cast.
It's a lava spike. 3 damage for 1 mana and one card. That is insanely good.
You can't really discount the flashback cost of it either. I have had games where that had won it for me. Granted, that is only like 1 or 2 out of 30+ games, but it happens from time to time.
You can't really discount the flashback cost of it either. I have had games where that had won it for me. Granted, that is only like 1 or 2 out of 30+ games, but it happens from time to time.
You can't really discount the flashback cost of it either. I have had games where that had won it for me. Granted, that is only like 1 or 2 out of 30+ games, but it happens from time to time.
No disrespect, but our decks must be extremely different for that to be a factor in yours. Statistically in my current deck(very different from the last one I posted), it would take on average over 20 turns for me to get that much mana. Assuming none of them get quartered/edged. And I'm willing to concede games that go that long.
And obviously 3 for 1 is good in RDW. Was mainly wondering if there was any reason to run it over Spike. Because I hear a lot of praise for it, while people act pretty meh towards spike.
You can't really discount the flashback cost of it either. I have had games where that had won it for me. Granted, that is only like 1 or 2 out of 30+ games, but it happens from time to time.
No disrespect, but our decks must be extremely different for that to be a factor in yours. Statistically in my current deck(very different from the last one I posted), it would take on average over 20 turns for me to get that much mana. Assuming none of them get quartered/edged. And I'm willing to concede games that go that long.
And obviously 3 for 1 is good in RDW. Was mainly wondering if there was any reason to run it over Spike. Because I hear a lot of praise for it, while people act pretty meh towards spike.
I really don't have time to explain to people why you wouldn't run spell x in a deck that runs spell y, when both spells do exactly the same thing. You run both, and it doesn't get more complicated than that. Especially when you are trying to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Losing 2-3 life here and there is worth it if you are the one winning the game.
Of course you don't plan on games lasting long enough to hit 6 mana. That doesn't mean that you won't get flooded from time to time. I don't ever count on paying the flashback cost of Bump, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't ever happen. I am talking like 1 in 20 games it might happen. Trust me when I tell you that I never want to see 6 mana in a single game with this deck. If I could control my topdeck to draw exactly what I wanted, I would be the best magic player ever. Even though 6 mana for a spell does not fall into the category of something you would be able to play consistently, I can tell you from experience that it has won me games more than once, and that effects decisions with how I play cards like Grim Lavamancer.
I really don't have time to explain to people why you wouldn't run spell x in a deck that runs spell y, when both spells do exactly the same thing. You run both, and it doesn't get more complicated than that. Especially when you are trying to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Losing 2-3 life here and there is worth it if you are the one winning the game.
Of course you don't plan on games lasting long enough to hit 6 mana. That doesn't mean that you won't get flooded from time to time. I don't ever count on paying the flashback cost of Bump, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't ever happen. I am talking like 1 in 20 games it might happen. Trust me when I tell you that I never want to see 6 mana in a single game with this deck. If I could control my topdeck to draw exactly what I wanted, I would be the best magic player ever. Even though 6 mana for a spell does not fall into the category of something you would be able to play consistently, I can tell you from experience that it has won me games more than once, and that effects decisions with how I play cards like Grim Lavamancer.
Too many trolls in these threads lately. I really don't have time to explain to people why you wouldn't run spell x in a deck that runs spell y, when both spells do exactly the same thing. You run both, and it doesn't get more complicated than that. Especially when you are trying to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Losing 2-3 life here and there is worth it if you are the one winning the game.
Don't lash out at others and call names because you don't understand the question.
Ill explain this simply one last time, but I really don't care anymore. There are professional players. As in people who play this game professionally. As in their decklists are winning major tournaments.
Who rate Bump higher than Spike when they run down their list.
And I was asking "Why." If you don't have an answer as to why one would put Bump over Spike in a deck that occasionally plays on 1-mountain hands, and never expects to flashback...then don't answer saying to run them both. Anyone with a pulse can see the advantages of running them both. I'm asking "Why is Bump better than Spike?" If nobody answers, then I'll know it's not. But apparently some people have their non-flashback reasons for thinking that it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I only ask one thing, If you make it to the point where you do a tourney report or perhaps deck tech, to just mention me, not even give me full credit, just be like, pyro314 reminded us all of this sweet tech.
Ready for it?
Someone may have mentioned it already, but I don't see it on this page nor the last page, so yea, feels like new tech, heh.
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
Quotes:
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
It's a lava spike. 3 damage for 1 mana and one card. That is insanely good.
It's a lava spike. 3 damage for 1 mana and one card. That is insanely good.
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
No disrespect, but our decks must be extremely different for that to be a factor in yours. Statistically in my current deck(very different from the last one I posted), it would take on average over 20 turns for me to get that much mana. Assuming none of them get quartered/edged. And I'm willing to concede games that go that long.
And obviously 3 for 1 is good in RDW. Was mainly wondering if there was any reason to run it over Spike. Because I hear a lot of praise for it, while people act pretty meh towards spike.
No disrespect, but our decks must be extremely different for that to be a factor in yours. Statistically in my current deck(very different from the last one I posted), it would take on average over 20 turns for me to get that much mana. Assuming none of them get quartered/edged. And I'm willing to concede games that go that long.
And obviously 3 for 1 is good in RDW. Was mainly wondering if there was any reason to run it over Spike. Because I hear a lot of praise for it, while people act pretty meh towards spike.
I understand that. And it's 20 actually. My questions was IS there. Does life loss over damage matter in any relevant matchups?
Or is Bump just a poor-man's Lava Spike?
I understand that. And it's 20 actually. My questions was IS there. Does life loss over damage matter in any relevant matchups?
Or is Bump just a poor-man's Lava Spike?
Of course you don't plan on games lasting long enough to hit 6 mana. That doesn't mean that you won't get flooded from time to time. I don't ever count on paying the flashback cost of Bump, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't ever happen. I am talking like 1 in 20 games it might happen. Trust me when I tell you that I never want to see 6 mana in a single game with this deck. If I could control my topdeck to draw exactly what I wanted, I would be the best magic player ever. Even though 6 mana for a spell does not fall into the category of something you would be able to play consistently, I can tell you from experience that it has won me games more than once, and that effects decisions with how I play cards like Grim Lavamancer.
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
Of course you don't plan on games lasting long enough to hit 6 mana. That doesn't mean that you won't get flooded from time to time. I don't ever count on paying the flashback cost of Bump, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't ever happen. I am talking like 1 in 20 games it might happen. Trust me when I tell you that I never want to see 6 mana in a single game with this deck. If I could control my topdeck to draw exactly what I wanted, I would be the best magic player ever. Even though 6 mana for a spell does not fall into the category of something you would be able to play consistently, I can tell you from experience that it has won me games more than once, and that effects decisions with how I play cards like Grim Lavamancer.
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
Don't lash out at others and call names because you don't understand the question.
Ill explain this simply one last time, but I really don't care anymore. There are professional players. As in people who play this game professionally. As in their decklists are winning major tournaments.
Who rate Bump higher than Spike when they run down their list.
And I was asking "Why." If you don't have an answer as to why one would put Bump over Spike in a deck that occasionally plays on 1-mountain hands, and never expects to flashback...then don't answer saying to run them both. Anyone with a pulse can see the advantages of running them both. I'm asking "Why is Bump better than Spike?" If nobody answers, then I'll know it's not. But apparently some people have their non-flashback reasons for thinking that it is.