Solace: Simian Spirit Guide and Remand are too very different cards.
Luckily, because I didn't want to get into that whole argument, I was arguing overall deckbuilding theory, not just remand vs whatever.
To continue a more productive discussion... as far as removal goes, StS is the best against Gruul, Imp is best against MGA, and Sudden Death is best against control matches. Unfortunately, Imp and Death aren't all that effective against Gruul, which is overall the biggest problem. If I have 4 mainboard slots for removal and 5 sideboard slots (Repeal not included in this assumption)... that just takes up all the slots. I don't have more space in the rest of the deck unless I drop the plan against some matches (say, drop the Extirpate and Ghost Quarters in favor of Deathmarks), but I really don't want to try to fend off a second turn Blood Moon without, well, anything to fend it off with. Deathmark is fast enough to kill off the one drops that can fuel it... honestly, I'm not sure that lands are really as big a threat as aggro decks in general are, so what do you think about dropping the Ghost Quarters to free up room? If I did that, I could fit a total of 2 StS, 3 Imp, 2 Death, 4 Deathmark, and 2 Last Gasp between main and sideboard.
Gaining and not losing tempo are virutally synonymis. If you think any deck in magic doesn't want to gain tempo, then your incorrect.
If that's true, then how come not every Red deck (and a lot of non-red decks) run Simian Spirit Guide? That's the purest form of tempo there is, and as a side effect, it's even a creature if you don't need the tempo.
I had an interesting idea while trying out a R/G LD control deck; it looked very much similar to KBBK, but slower. So, how about a transformational sideboard? Side in cheap creatures for expensive spells (or vice versa; you can start in KBBK mode if you want) when your opponent sides in or out creature destruction. Plus you can partially transform depending on what deck you want to face; keep the Blood Moons in KBBK mode to fight control, or keep the Pyroclasms in 'vore mode to fight aggro.
Remand is format defining. If you disagree you should check any pro's take on it. Maybe not at the moment, but it has been.
Remand is like Armageddon. It'd be very good in some decks, but not every deck playing the colors should use it. It gains you a ton of tempo, but this deck is the slowest currently competitive deck, and it just can't exploit a gain in tempo (against most decks; I admit MGA is an exception). It sure doesn't want to lose tempo, but that's different from wanting to gain it.
Its hard to wrap my mind around this deck being such extreme control, and not having a place for its own ***. That happens when you've played with or against *** in every tournament for 11 years (a couple breaks withstanding)
Well, even if there where decks that could run *** without support from other cards (and it would be hard to go and check all of them, but I bet most do), creatures have gotten more efficient since then and counters less efficient. Instead of countering a 3-4 mana 3/3 with a 2 mana hard counter, we have to try to counter a 2 mana 3/3 with a 3 mana hard counter, which makes aggro a far larger threat than it had been historically. This means that we, at the same time, have an unprecedented need for support removal, and also an unprecedented lack of it. Which means... until black gets the removal it deserves, we just can't run Damnation.
My mainboard removal consists of: 2x Repeal, 1x Sudden Death, 1x Seize the Soul. Sideboard removal consists of: 2-3x Stinkweed Imp, 2x Sudden Death, and 2-3x Seize the Soul.
And for the record, darkblast and deathmark are NOT good. Darkblast doesn't do anything that last gasp doesn't, and a singleton mainboard doesn't consistently stop a turn 1 birds; not that that stops anything anyway because they are just as likely to play ledgewalker. Deathmark isn't good; 1 mana or no, it's still sorcery speed meaning you have to stuff your sb with 3 to 4 of them. Also, there are far more and better solutions like those listed above.
So, basically you run a bunch of expensive removal instead of cheap removal? That's definitely interesting... do you have any problems waiting that long to get it?
I think the implication here is in the word 'temporary'. There hasn't been another terrorist attack here for years, but good luck getting the Patriot Act repealed...
How does your MB/SB look as far as creature removal goes? Is Stinkweed Imp in addition to other forms of removal, or replacing it; and what does it replace in either case? Do you have one to tutor for or several to draw?
I know very well that this deck abuses instants, but I've played long enough to know that nearly every control deck with white has run ***. I don't see why Damnation should be any different.
Because White also has Porphyry Nodes, Condemn, Temporal Isolation, Faith's Fetters, Return to Dust, Disenchant... White's creature removal is still leaps and bounds better than Black's, and one card that was made black too won't change that; not to mention they can take out artifacts and enchantments too, and we're just screwed if a damaging one resolves and we can't repeal + counter it.
EDIT: If untargatables are a major pain, I think I'd test Evacuation over Damnation, since it can be searched and also played EoT... are you still running the sided Spellburst? It helps a lot against aggro decks that try to stick around casting low cost cards...
The biggest losses (if they're not put in 10th, of course) will be Spell Snare and Repeal. Now, I think there's a fair chance that there'll be a playable cheap counter to replace Spell Snare, but I really cringe at losing Repeal. There's a reason it's played in every version of Dralnu and no other bounce spell is; it's the best bounce spell of all time (ignoring things like Man-'o-War and Jilt that also do other things), and had 10-15 good uses the last time I bothered to list them. It just helps out in so many ways... I really hope it gets put in the core set, because it's the only good pure bounce spell I can think of. Last Gasp and Seize the Soul will be missed too; I really hope black starts getting some actually good removal again.
Ummm...everyone disagreeing was disagreeing with his reasoning. This is getting nowhere. Just try to answer the following questions without Jack's logic, and not some indirect well-I-worded-it-differently-so-its-not-the-same logic.
1. Why do I run the thing in the first place?
2. Why do I only run 1?
Its pretty tough to answer number two without his logic (or 'reasoning' as Solace put it in the last post).
Look, this is beyond pointless, so if you don't get it, I'm not going to reply on this subject again.
Yeah, it's worth the one-of because if it drops, you're set for black, and if you don't draw it, you're probably getting your black sources anyway.
The bolded part is wrong. Mathematically proven wrong. I just wanted to point that out because I'd heard that exact, wrong, argument before.
The correct answer to #2 is that drawing more than one is bad, and it's not good enough to justify the risk in running more than one. It's better than a swamp, but not good enough to be worth dead cards in your hand. Not because of some mystical ability to make you have enough black sources whether you draw it or not.
I fail to see how anyone isn't agreeing with Jack's logic. This borders on trolling imo becuase you are just coming up with a different way to say what he has said and trying to make him sound wrong.
The choice isn't wrong, the reasoning is wrong. Again, this isn't the first time I've heard that reasoning, and it would usually be justifying something incorrect. Which is what I've said the first time I've posted about this, and every time after that.
It's just fine to run 1 Uborg, but I don't want people to start running 1 Damnation and 1 Remand because "if you don't draw them you'll draw all the creature removal and tempo cards you'll need". That's all my point was. It wasn't that big a deal, but then everyone had to jump all over me about I-don't-even-know-what.
How'd I miss that? Switched to a 1x, added a Darkblast.
Is Desert not enough, and do you still have problems with the X/1's on turn 5+? I admit that Darkblast is fairly good against Boros, but Seize the Soul is so much better against Gruul/MGA, which are such worse matchups... plus, you can still Seize Boros' red creatures, right?
It is perfectly sound reasoning to include a one of legendary land because it COULD help you.
Can we please focus on something that's relevant to this deck?
1. Yes, I have agreed to that before a few times.
2. I'm arguing this because it's not the first time I've heard it. It's the exact same way someone was justifying a 1-MD Damnation; "if I don't draw that, it means I've drawn a lot of other creature destruction". I forget exactly who said that, but it's not based on any sort of reality, and since it has come up more than once, I figure it's worth mentioning that it's a useless line of reasoning. Extremely flawed reasoning to justify deckbuilding that's come up more than once is relevant to the deck, right?
Conterary to Solace's incoherent babbling, H1gH_J@cK's reasoning is a little sound.
No, it's not. I've already agreed that Uborg is essentially strictly better than a swamp, but this statement is blatantly false:
If you don't draw X, then you're assured of having drawn things similar to X.
... which is false. Mathematically. Say, including Uborg, you have 14 black producing lands in your deck. Every card you draw has about a 2.33 chance of producing black mana. If you assume you don't draw Uborg, then the remaining chance to draw a card that produces black mana is 2.2 (13/59 < 14/60), which is less. It just is. That statement is provably mathematically false. I don't know what else to say to convince you.
Yeah, it's worth the one-of because if it drops, you're set for black, and if you don't draw it, you're probably getting your black sources anyway.
I would just like to point out that this is horrifically bad reasoning, on every level.
EDIT: I mean... I really want to be more constructive than that, but I don't know what to say. That statement (and this isn't the first time I've heard it) just isn't at all grounded in any way in logic, mathematics, or anything...
Say I use Shahrazad to make a subgame. Are cards in the original game considered outside the subgame? Could I make an incredibly long game through the use of Shahrazad, Burning Wish, and Research // Development?
Bonus question: If I can, is there a way to prevent my opponent from beating me to death?
Luckily, because I didn't want to get into that whole argument, I was arguing overall deckbuilding theory, not just remand vs whatever.
If that's true, then how come not every Red deck (and a lot of non-red decks) run Simian Spirit Guide? That's the purest form of tempo there is, and as a side effect, it's even a creature if you don't need the tempo.
4 Karplusan Forest
4 Stomping Grounds
2 Gruul Turf
2 Skaarg, the Rage Pits
2 Fungal Reaches
5 Forest
5 Mountian
Creatures
3 Avalanche Riders
3 Rumbling Slum
4 Rift Bolt
4 Boom // Bust
2 LftL
3 Gruul Signet
4 Stone Rain
4 Char
3 Blood Moon
3 Mwonvuli Acid-Moss
3 Wildfire
4 Kird Ape
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Call of the Herd
3 Pyroclasm
I had an interesting idea while trying out a R/G LD control deck; it looked very much similar to KBBK, but slower. So, how about a transformational sideboard? Side in cheap creatures for expensive spells (or vice versa; you can start in KBBK mode if you want) when your opponent sides in or out creature destruction. Plus you can partially transform depending on what deck you want to face; keep the Blood Moons in KBBK mode to fight control, or keep the Pyroclasms in 'vore mode to fight aggro.
Thoughts?
Remand is like Armageddon. It'd be very good in some decks, but not every deck playing the colors should use it. It gains you a ton of tempo, but this deck is the slowest currently competitive deck, and it just can't exploit a gain in tempo (against most decks; I admit MGA is an exception). It sure doesn't want to lose tempo, but that's different from wanting to gain it.
Well, even if there where decks that could run *** without support from other cards (and it would be hard to go and check all of them, but I bet most do), creatures have gotten more efficient since then and counters less efficient. Instead of countering a 3-4 mana 3/3 with a 2 mana hard counter, we have to try to counter a 2 mana 3/3 with a 3 mana hard counter, which makes aggro a far larger threat than it had been historically. This means that we, at the same time, have an unprecedented need for support removal, and also an unprecedented lack of it. Which means... until black gets the removal it deserves, we just can't run Damnation.
So, basically you run a bunch of expensive removal instead of cheap removal? That's definitely interesting... do you have any problems waiting that long to get it?
How does your MB/SB look as far as creature removal goes? Is Stinkweed Imp in addition to other forms of removal, or replacing it; and what does it replace in either case? Do you have one to tutor for or several to draw?
Because White also has Porphyry Nodes, Condemn, Temporal Isolation, Faith's Fetters, Return to Dust, Disenchant... White's creature removal is still leaps and bounds better than Black's, and one card that was made black too won't change that; not to mention they can take out artifacts and enchantments too, and we're just screwed if a damaging one resolves and we can't repeal + counter it.
EDIT: If untargatables are a major pain, I think I'd test Evacuation over Damnation, since it can be searched and also played EoT... are you still running the sided Spellburst? It helps a lot against aggro decks that try to stick around casting low cost cards...
Look, this is beyond pointless, so if you don't get it, I'm not going to reply on this subject again.
The bolded part is wrong. Mathematically proven wrong. I just wanted to point that out because I'd heard that exact, wrong, argument before.
The correct answer to #2 is that drawing more than one is bad, and it's not good enough to justify the risk in running more than one. It's better than a swamp, but not good enough to be worth dead cards in your hand. Not because of some mystical ability to make you have enough black sources whether you draw it or not.
Exactly.
The choice isn't wrong, the reasoning is wrong. Again, this isn't the first time I've heard that reasoning, and it would usually be justifying something incorrect. Which is what I've said the first time I've posted about this, and every time after that.
It's just fine to run 1 Uborg, but I don't want people to start running 1 Damnation and 1 Remand because "if you don't draw them you'll draw all the creature removal and tempo cards you'll need". That's all my point was. It wasn't that big a deal, but then everyone had to jump all over me about I-don't-even-know-what.
Is Desert not enough, and do you still have problems with the X/1's on turn 5+? I admit that Darkblast is fairly good against Boros, but Seize the Soul is so much better against Gruul/MGA, which are such worse matchups... plus, you can still Seize Boros' red creatures, right?
1. Yes, I have agreed to that before a few times.
2. I'm arguing this because it's not the first time I've heard it. It's the exact same way someone was justifying a 1-MD Damnation; "if I don't draw that, it means I've drawn a lot of other creature destruction". I forget exactly who said that, but it's not based on any sort of reality, and since it has come up more than once, I figure it's worth mentioning that it's a useless line of reasoning. Extremely flawed reasoning to justify deckbuilding that's come up more than once is relevant to the deck, right?
No, it's not. I've already agreed that Uborg is essentially strictly better than a swamp, but this statement is blatantly false:
If you don't draw X, then you're assured of having drawn things similar to X.
... which is false. Mathematically. Say, including Uborg, you have 14 black producing lands in your deck. Every card you draw has about a 2.33 chance of producing black mana. If you assume you don't draw Uborg, then the remaining chance to draw a card that produces black mana is 2.2 (13/59 < 14/60), which is less. It just is. That statement is provably mathematically false. I don't know what else to say to convince you.
I would just like to point out that this is horrifically bad reasoning, on every level.
EDIT: I mean... I really want to be more constructive than that, but I don't know what to say. That statement (and this isn't the first time I've heard it) just isn't at all grounded in any way in logic, mathematics, or anything...
Bonus question: If I can, is there a way to prevent my opponent from beating me to death?