I cant believe you are actually arguing that mystical teachings and Careful consideration are the same at all. First, you can play teachings twice, so if it gets countered so what? Second, and most importantly, MYSTICAL TEACHINGS ACCOMPLISHES SOMETHING. Wow, its true but mystical teachihngs gets your win conditions or a relevent counterspell. Careful consideration? Not effectivly.
I'm not going to argue the uses of CC anymore because it's fairly clear you refuse to hear them, but my point was that it's exactly as easy to cast MT (a 4 mana blue instant) as CC (a 4 mana blue instant), so dismissing CC as 'hard to cast' while embracing 4x MT is illogical.
I think that Stonecloaker (much more than Whitemane Lion) can be used maindeck because of it's varied applications. In combat or against point removal (aggro), it's card advantage. Against mass removal (non-U control), it can save your best creature. Against U-control, you can use it on a 1-drop EoT, then follow with another largish creature to force some sort of threat through. Plus it just happens to deal with grave-decks, and you can also reuse CiP creatures if you have them, too. You have to think through all the tricks you'll use it for, but I do think it's got an application against all or most decks.
Im most curious, what did you take out for careful consideration. There is nothing that i would take from my build that would be better off as careful consideration. Whether or not careful consideration is good, there are better draw spells and then more versitile other spells that i would put in far before i put in cards that are late game cards that dont really effect relevent matchups. If you havent stabalized by late game, you are having probems that careful consideration doesnt mystically cure.
Well, first off I'd like to say that if you assume you can easily play Mystical Teachings, Careful Consideration can't be that hard either.
As for what to take out, well, that's the tricky part. The reason I hadn't been running it for a while was exactly because I couldn't figure that out, but with the idea of 4 Remand, 3 MT, 2 CC, I'm going to try again.
@SRdude: You're either good or you're not, you can't be both. And if you think your decisions are perfect just because you made them, well... why do you even come to a discussion thread? Last, if you don't feel like typing out your reasons for thinking something, don't post at all. Basic rule.
Edited out an unnecessary attack against another poster
I have. As I've said a couple times now, it's better than people give it credit for, and that wasn't based just on reading it. It's a good way to draw into that MT that's been eluding you, or that hard counter you've needed while a Rune Snag's been set uselessly at 2, cycle the Repeal or Last Gasp or Spell Snare that's had no target, find the Desert or Storageland that's going to save you (or lose one that won't)... and so on. Picking which four cards out of eight you want to keep is pretty massive filtering, and helps set up the resolved Dralnu, which in turn lets you reuse all the cards you discarded anyway. It's not a must-have for the deck, but it's not nearly as useless as you keep saying.
IM pretty sure if you arent a pro, but you still play, thats called a "low level of play"
He said I played worse than him, not a pro. He also said he wasn't a very good player. Worse than someone who isn't good is an insult if I've ever heard one.
And since dralnu doesnt want to discard its counters, it wants to use them, thats not good. There is no GY abuse in the deck, and if you call flashback on mystical teachings GY abuse then you are wrong.
Mystical Teachings, Dralnu, Rune Snag, lands you have too many or two few of, silver bullets useless for this match (Commandeer vs aggro or StS/Last Gasp/Repeal later on vs control, for example). Yes, it's better against control than aggro, but played at instant speed it's still very good. How many times have you sat and thought, 'well, I really wish this X in my hand was Y'? Pretty often, I'm betting. CC gives you a pretty good shot at drawing that MT/Tefari/hard counter you need. Again, I'm not saying that you have to run it, but you don't need to belittle people who do.
Speaking of which, is 4 copies of Mystical Teachings too many? I've seen some builds that run 3, others than run 4. It's obviously vital to the deck, but it (like CC) seems like a mid-late game card, and therefore 3 would seem like a good number. But I've got little experience with this deck, so I'm curious as to others' opinions.
Well, on one hand, if you draw multiple MT and find the time to play and flash them all, you're probably winning anyway. On the other hand, MT is probably the best card in this deck, so you really want to draw at least one. There's a fair reason to run either three or four; for example, if I was going to run 2 CC I might go down to 3 MT, because I'd be more assured of drawing one.
EDIT2: Come to think of it, a while back I said that 2 CC, 3 MT, 4 TT was the best set of card draw, but also that 9 draw spells was too many, and I didn't know how to make that work. But, with the new idea to replace TT with Remand, 2 CC, 3 MT, 4 Remand gives nearly the same drawing power, but without making a fourth the spells in the deck dedicated to draw effects; and it only takes up slightly more room than the 4 MT 4 Remand route. I'm gonna have to test that out.
SRdude, I have been playing Magic for approximately eight years, and saying that I am "at a low level of play" is frankly insulting. I may not be a pro, but I do know quite well what I am doing. And you know what? Yes, actual support for any and all of your egocentric arguments would be very much appreciated.
What does this post have anything to do with the Dralnu discussion? Spam infraction issued
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but you choose which one the ability comes from, then pay it. It doesn't matter at all that you have three of them in play, since the ability can be used as often as you want. Pay 3 to use the ability once, 6 to use it twice, 9 to use it three times...
EDIT: Does the rest of the information you gave have a purpose, by the way?
The only way you can rely on a deckbuilding strategy that doesn't work in a truly randomized deck is cheating, plain and simple. If you get a harsher shuffle than you think you would in a real life tournament, look on it as a learning experience. Not to mention, in a MWS game, both players use the shuffler, so if it did convey an advantage or disadvantage, it would be spread equally to both players.
As far as TT and CC goes... there's just no way this deck has the room for 10 draw spells, no matter how much you like them. There's arguments to use either, but I strongly feel that using both at the same time is a mistake. Ok... maybe you could if you where heavily tooling the deck to take on control players, but not in any balanced list, at least.
Maybe they won't listen, but almost no one's really making the attempt
What realistic plan do you propose, then? Fighting won't work, talking won't work, and economic pressures change governments, not cultures. Maybe the reason no one's doing anything is because there's nothing they can do?
Careful Consideration specifically is a card I've been a little on the fence about, so your input is appreciated.
It's better than people give it credit for, but... yeah, it's hard to fit into the deck. One big reason to run it, though, is if you want to run more card draw than just MT, but can't spare the room for 4 TT. 2 CC is plenty, and they can be quite helpful. You don't have to use it, of course, but you can. However, personally, I wouldn't run 2 CC and 2 TT; either 2 CC or 4 TT would probably be better.
Actually, the MWS shuffler is just better at shuffling than you; technically, if you're used to better draws, you're cheating. But I don't think you'll get called on it, no worries.
You're kidding, right? Communists, theocrats, or good old fashioned dictators, these people are notoriously corrupt. All anyone in some ****-stain, corrupt regime wants to do is get enough money to move to move to the first world with their family, the Hell away from poverty, and actually enjoy the luxuries in life. Every single leader in these corrupt regimes is robbing the coffers blind.
Go out and make the case. Democracy works. A nation that spends time destroying itself, destroying it's minority, destroying it's women, is going to, surprise, end up destroyed. Freedom means competition. Competition builds strength. These are the models that work. If you want a peaceful, stable life with economic opportunity and liberty for your kids, pick up a ****ing gun and shoot the ******* dictator running the place.
First off, as I said, before, it isn't a problem with the dictators, it's a problem with the culture. Second, you're not gonna be able to argue that. Heck, if you can't argue to an overpopulated and underfed and underhoused country that maybe having eight kids would be a bad idea, do you honestly think that they can grasp "being nice = more money"? That's a far more nebulous concept than "not enough food/space for people now, don't make tons of more people".
You... want to change cultural values through diplomacy, one of the greatest tenants of which is respect for other cultures. Yeah, we'll ask them to change all the values their lives have been built on, and offer exactly what in exchange? They're willing to kill themselves to prove their point, and their will will crumble if you wave a few dollars past their noses?
Well, sadly, yes, it takes a while to bring crime down. But here's what I'm trying to say;
It's half the ****ing goddamn world.
No, it's more than half the world. And you see, the women there believe it too. What do you really think we can do there? We can't change the attitudes of a country a tenth the size of ours, so how do you propose we magically fix a population ten times larger? Yes, it would be awesome to make all the problems in the world better, but do you actually have the slightest semblance of a plan to back that ideology? There's a big difference in identifying a thousand-year old problem, and actually rectifying it...
Is that a correct summary, or am I missing something?
You're missing your assumption that the mere fear of retaliation would control the rest of the planet. There's no way our army can police the entire planet... at all. And it would take the rest of the planet about five seconds to realize this. It's a nice thought, sure, but so is thinking they'll all stop just because we ask them.
I'm not going to argue the uses of CC anymore because it's fairly clear you refuse to hear them, but my point was that it's exactly as easy to cast MT (a 4 mana blue instant) as CC (a 4 mana blue instant), so dismissing CC as 'hard to cast' while embracing 4x MT is illogical.
Well, first off I'd like to say that if you assume you can easily play Mystical Teachings, Careful Consideration can't be that hard either.
As for what to take out, well, that's the tricky part. The reason I hadn't been running it for a while was exactly because I couldn't figure that out, but with the idea of 4 Remand, 3 MT, 2 CC, I'm going to try again.
@SRdude: You're either good or you're not, you can't be both. And if you think your decisions are perfect just because you made them, well... why do you even come to a discussion thread? Last, if you don't feel like typing out your reasons for thinking something, don't post at all. Basic rule.
Edited out an unnecessary attack against another poster
I have. As I've said a couple times now, it's better than people give it credit for, and that wasn't based just on reading it. It's a good way to draw into that MT that's been eluding you, or that hard counter you've needed while a Rune Snag's been set uselessly at 2, cycle the Repeal or Last Gasp or Spell Snare that's had no target, find the Desert or Storageland that's going to save you (or lose one that won't)... and so on. Picking which four cards out of eight you want to keep is pretty massive filtering, and helps set up the resolved Dralnu, which in turn lets you reuse all the cards you discarded anyway. It's not a must-have for the deck, but it's not nearly as useless as you keep saying.
He said I played worse than him, not a pro. He also said he wasn't a very good player. Worse than someone who isn't good is an insult if I've ever heard one.
Mystical Teachings, Dralnu, Rune Snag, lands you have too many or two few of, silver bullets useless for this match (Commandeer vs aggro or StS/Last Gasp/Repeal later on vs control, for example). Yes, it's better against control than aggro, but played at instant speed it's still very good. How many times have you sat and thought, 'well, I really wish this X in my hand was Y'? Pretty often, I'm betting. CC gives you a pretty good shot at drawing that MT/Tefari/hard counter you need. Again, I'm not saying that you have to run it, but you don't need to belittle people who do.
EDIT:
Well, on one hand, if you draw multiple MT and find the time to play and flash them all, you're probably winning anyway. On the other hand, MT is probably the best card in this deck, so you really want to draw at least one. There's a fair reason to run either three or four; for example, if I was going to run 2 CC I might go down to 3 MT, because I'd be more assured of drawing one.
EDIT2: Come to think of it, a while back I said that 2 CC, 3 MT, 4 TT was the best set of card draw, but also that 9 draw spells was too many, and I didn't know how to make that work. But, with the new idea to replace TT with Remand, 2 CC, 3 MT, 4 Remand gives nearly the same drawing power, but without making a fourth the spells in the deck dedicated to draw effects; and it only takes up slightly more room than the 4 MT 4 Remand route. I'm gonna have to test that out.
What does this post have anything to do with the Dralnu discussion? Spam infraction issued
EDIT: Does the rest of the information you gave have a purpose, by the way?
As far as TT and CC goes... there's just no way this deck has the room for 10 draw spells, no matter how much you like them. There's arguments to use either, but I strongly feel that using both at the same time is a mistake. Ok... maybe you could if you where heavily tooling the deck to take on control players, but not in any balanced list, at least.
What realistic plan do you propose, then? Fighting won't work, talking won't work, and economic pressures change governments, not cultures. Maybe the reason no one's doing anything is because there's nothing they can do?
It's better than people give it credit for, but... yeah, it's hard to fit into the deck. One big reason to run it, though, is if you want to run more card draw than just MT, but can't spare the room for 4 TT. 2 CC is plenty, and they can be quite helpful. You don't have to use it, of course, but you can. However, personally, I wouldn't run 2 CC and 2 TT; either 2 CC or 4 TT would probably be better.
If you notice, Careful Consideration is an instant.
http://www.mwsgames.com/index.php/MWS_Shuffler
Actually, the MWS shuffler is just better at shuffling than you; technically, if you're used to better draws, you're cheating.
The other complaints are true, though.
First off, as I said, before, it isn't a problem with the dictators, it's a problem with the culture. Second, you're not gonna be able to argue that. Heck, if you can't argue to an overpopulated and underfed and underhoused country that maybe having eight kids would be a bad idea, do you honestly think that they can grasp "being nice = more money"? That's a far more nebulous concept than "not enough food/space for people now, don't make tons of more people".
You... want to change cultural values through diplomacy, one of the greatest tenants of which is respect for other cultures. Yeah, we'll ask them to change all the values their lives have been built on, and offer exactly what in exchange? They're willing to kill themselves to prove their point, and their will will crumble if you wave a few dollars past their noses?
Because, for the seventh or eighth time, we don't have enough manpower by at least two orders of magnitude.
No, it's more than half the world. And you see, the women there believe it too. What do you really think we can do there? We can't change the attitudes of a country a tenth the size of ours, so how do you propose we magically fix a population ten times larger? Yes, it would be awesome to make all the problems in the world better, but do you actually have the slightest semblance of a plan to back that ideology? There's a big difference in identifying a thousand-year old problem, and actually rectifying it...
You're missing your assumption that the mere fear of retaliation would control the rest of the planet. There's no way our army can police the entire planet... at all. And it would take the rest of the planet about five seconds to realize this. It's a nice thought, sure, but so is thinking they'll all stop just because we ask them.