what i do have a problem with is feeling the need to make a thread that has no purpose other than spam into something else. it was designed to be a spam factory and on every forum i have ever been on, that is exactly what it is. forcing discussion is my problem. it can happen naturally. limiting posts, fine. the paragraph is what really got me.
Ok... just think about it for a bit. The mod quite understandably didn't want a thread full of spam. Therefore, he's got three options I can think of:
1. As he did, require everyone posting to post a reasonable amount to try to encourage non-spam.
2. Give out spam warnings to everyone who spams.
3. Lock the thread.
Now, you seem in favor of the thread, so 3 is out. So... do you prefer being told not to spam or getting a spam warning? Whether to allow the thread to become a spam-thread or not is very much within the mod's responsibilities...
I think the mods, overall, do a pretty good job here. At least as far as I know, I haven't even gotten an official warning (although I have gotten unofficial warnings). I have noticed mods being fairly harsh on occasion, but... the thing people've got to remember is that they have lives. It's not like your posts are the only thing that they have going on that day. They not only have to check out your posts, but every other post in the forum they moderate, then post themselves, and that's only in the time they devote to this site. If I had to filter through 50+ posts per day, I'd probably be fairly abrupt with the warnable ones, just through time constraints...
Well, I think the reason that untargetable things are the main problem is largely because they don't die to Desert at all. I guess it really comes down to how much W/X aggro you think you'll see; if it's a lot, go with max Deserts, and if it's not much, you can probably ease off them.
About Annex... yeah, I can see how a turn 4 annex on a bounceland when playing second if you don't have any counters you can play that turn would hurt. ... buuut, I don't think that'll come up as often. I do think that Annex is worth countering (at least early game), because stealing a bounceland or storageland would make for a huge mana swing, but... I don't see it as particularly hard to counter. Mana Leak, Rune Snag, and Cancel all hit it on the draw; and on the play, Rewind does too. It's usually worth countering, but I'd be more worried about a turn 4 Harmonize, and how often do you see that sort of play from control decks?
So... what, U/G aggro + some token generation at the cost of mana consistency? The only card in there that's even a moderate threat to Dralnu is Vitu-Gazi, and that one card isn't enough to secure you the win, not by a long shot. Nothing in there's a threat to Dragonstorm and you definitely can't race them, so I know that's wrong too. You might be right about Boros and MGA because I'm not so great at figuring out aggro vs aggro in my head, but just first impression, I think both of those decks can beat this one, too.
I think our version of Dralnu should dominate a more sorcery-oriented version of Dralnu, regardless of how good Annex may or may not be (and I'd say not, personally).
If you want Mirror tech I'd advise Urza's Factory; most other creatures cancel out fairly often either through counter wars, the legend rule, or creature removal. Urza's Factory gives you plenty of uncounterable, instant-speed creatures, and feeds Grim Harvest, if you've already lost your better creatures.
Right, and that's what I mean. It seems inconsistent with Sylar's other stolen powers, which he seems to have immediate control over. Although maybe it's just that his inherent power allows him to achieve control of stolen powers at a faster rate than the other heroes.
I think its like... if you know how to fly a helicopter, you can probably learn to ride a motorcycle pretty fast. And if you learn that, then a jet ski would be even easier. But having someone shout into a bullhorn next to your ear? That's straight tolerance, not skill, that needs to be built up...
If you have 2 land and a couple 2cc's in hand facing gruul, you're pretty much not going to dump that bounceland because the next turn's play will kill you. Personally I use 3, it seems to be not too much and not too little. 2 aqueducts 1 desert in opening hand is awkward.
Well, two lands and a bunch of 2CC spells would enable you to survive the first few turns, but you will run out at that rate. I think people need to obsess less about what happens if you draw a normal land and a bounceland... if you draw just 2-3 of any sort of lands, you're not going to do well. Bouncelands help immensely with the 3-5 land hands (which are more likely anyway), letting you skip an extra mana up to your more powerful spells for free.
On the other hand, unless I expect a heavy control enviroment I wouldn't go to 4 bouncelands either.
um... seems like MBC and MGA are not easy match ups...
A few bad draws don't make it a bad matchup... people are more likely to report a loss here than a win anyway (more useful to discuss a possible flaw than just congratulate yourself). Even if the match is slightly in your favor, you can still lose, especially to a good player.
hey guys can you give a thought or two on dranlu tron? I mean U/b tron,thanks!
Well, it was discussed a while back, but... so you don't have to wade through a hundred pages, it was essentially decided that it made the manabase too unstable and we didn't get very much out of it. Not to mention that Deserts are our one saving grace vs quicker aggros... I'd expect U/B tron to have serious problems vs any aggro deck.
sometimes aqueduct can be bad too. im sure u guys had those hands of 1 land+ bounce land? i hate those kind of hand since my conuterspells dont go up until turn 3
On the other hand, what do you do with a normal 2-land hand? Hope to draw 2-3 in a row so you can get into your Cancels, Rewinds, Mystical Teachings, and Tefaris? It might hurt to skip a counterspell, but at least you can play them in the first place...
I would argue that our impact upon life has been negative overall, and that another sentient being could easily do better. However, I'm not saying one will evolve in 50 million years, just that one could, and that a great many species will arise that could not if we were still dominant.
Well, how is our impact on the environment any different from the plants you mentioned before that pumped toxic oxygen into the air? You sounded pretty happy about how that turned out.
I mean, if killing us off would open up space for something maybe better, then why couldn't us killing stuff off be making room for something better? By your own arguments, shouldn't you be happy we're causing extinction all over?
I'm curious how many people agree with Prizm that the absolute priority is sustaining our species at any cost, and how many agree with me that there are some things, such as life in general, that are more important than our own existence.
I think too many people view humanity as different from nature. We're not. We're making our own environment, just like ants and beavers... the only difference is that we're really good at it. Life in general is pretty hard to kill off, because when anything dies, that's space something else can take...
Well, the Aqueducts are kind of like a two-mana Kodama's Reach... getting an off color (good)card at a discount without even using up a spell slot is pretty serious tech. Ok, it hurts if you draw just it and a regular land vs boros, but... any two-land hand hurts when facing boros. I'd preferably drop one... well, it really depends on the hand and matchup in question.
Forcing an activation of a card that isn't played? sounds like tech.
Hmm... for that matter, you could probably have snuck Vampire into play by the time the D-storm player could amass 13RRRR, couldn't you? Or 12RRR, for that matter (no willbender/shock). That's, lets see... Dragonstorm, Word of Seizing, three spells to produce :symr::symr:, and 9 lands in play? We can win under no resistance before turn 15-ish...
Suppose there instead existed intelligent dinosaurs. Would there be a difference between ourselves and they? As in, is one inherently more desirable than the other?
Yes and no. There weren't any then, so either way (under that assumption), we'd end up with X sentient creatures. However, since we already have X sentient creatures, what good would starting over do? Mass extinction doesn't necessarily mean that something better happens; regular evolution does that. I'd argue that you can't really assume that anything would evolve in 50 million years that ends up better than humans that humans themselves couldn't do in 50 million years.
(The interesting thing is that if Sylar did kill Peter, he wouldn't have to kill again. Peter's power makes his own power redundant.)
Well, I stand by my earlier point that Sylar's power and Peter's power are similar, but different. I don't know if it's just harder for Sylar to get his copied powers or if there's a limit to it Peter doesn't have, but I am pretty sure that Sylar can have the powers always work statically, and Peter needs to specifically activate them, making the copy-regen of his worse than a Sylar-copy-regen. ...on the other hand, he can turn them off too, while Sylar seems to be having trouble with his super-hearing.
Another thing I would like addressed is Words of Seizing.
Do we just scoop to a Words on Teferi + combo from DStorm?
Willbender works, but if not that, I'd advise not to drop Tefari unless they've already tried to combo out, personally. Try to force through any win condition without him (Urza's Factory or even Withered Wretch after siding works, or wait to drop Vampire the turn after they try to combo out), then just sit back and stop them from comboing out successfully while you take them down..
Ok... just think about it for a bit. The mod quite understandably didn't want a thread full of spam. Therefore, he's got three options I can think of:
1. As he did, require everyone posting to post a reasonable amount to try to encourage non-spam.
2. Give out spam warnings to everyone who spams.
3. Lock the thread.
Now, you seem in favor of the thread, so 3 is out. So... do you prefer being told not to spam or getting a spam warning?
About Annex... yeah, I can see how a turn 4 annex on a bounceland when playing second if you don't have any counters you can play that turn would hurt. ... buuut, I don't think that'll come up as often. I do think that Annex is worth countering (at least early game), because stealing a bounceland or storageland would make for a huge mana swing, but... I don't see it as particularly hard to counter. Mana Leak, Rune Snag, and Cancel all hit it on the draw; and on the play, Rewind does too. It's usually worth countering, but I'd be more worried about a turn 4 Harmonize, and how often do you see that sort of play from control decks?
Also, I think this belongs in DFC...
If you want Mirror tech I'd advise Urza's Factory; most other creatures cancel out fairly often either through counter wars, the legend rule, or creature removal. Urza's Factory gives you plenty of uncounterable, instant-speed creatures, and feeds Grim Harvest, if you've already lost your better creatures.
I think if the only reason decks like MGA and Gruul are good is because they beat Dralnu, that means that Dralnu's pretty darn good, don't you?
I think its like... if you know how to fly a helicopter, you can probably learn to ride a motorcycle pretty fast. And if you learn that, then a jet ski would be even easier. But having someone shout into a bullhorn next to your ear? That's straight tolerance, not skill, that needs to be built up...
Well, two lands and a bunch of 2CC spells would enable you to survive the first few turns, but you will run out at that rate. I think people need to obsess less about what happens if you draw a normal land and a bounceland... if you draw just 2-3 of any sort of lands, you're not going to do well. Bouncelands help immensely with the 3-5 land hands (which are more likely anyway), letting you skip an extra mana up to your more powerful spells for free.
On the other hand, unless I expect a heavy control enviroment I wouldn't go to 4 bouncelands either.
Well, if you think you need to side in 4-5 cards to it, maybe it is a match to be worked up about?
A few bad draws don't make it a bad matchup... people are more likely to report a loss here than a win anyway (more useful to discuss a possible flaw than just congratulate yourself). Even if the match is slightly in your favor, you can still lose, especially to a good player.
Well, it was discussed a while back, but... so you don't have to wade through a hundred pages, it was essentially decided that it made the manabase too unstable and we didn't get very much out of it. Not to mention that Deserts are our one saving grace vs quicker aggros... I'd expect U/B tron to have serious problems vs any aggro deck.
On the other hand, what do you do with a normal 2-land hand? Hope to draw 2-3 in a row so you can get into your Cancels, Rewinds, Mystical Teachings, and Tefaris? It might hurt to skip a counterspell, but at least you can play them in the first place...
Well, how is our impact on the environment any different from the plants you mentioned before that pumped toxic oxygen into the air? You sounded pretty happy about how that turned out.
I mean, if killing us off would open up space for something maybe better, then why couldn't us killing stuff off be making room for something better? By your own arguments, shouldn't you be happy we're causing extinction all over?
I think too many people view humanity as different from nature. We're not. We're making our own environment, just like ants and beavers... the only difference is that we're really good at it. Life in general is pretty hard to kill off, because when anything dies, that's space something else can take...
Hmm... for that matter, you could probably have snuck Vampire into play by the time the D-storm player could amass 13RRRR, couldn't you? Or 12RRR, for that matter (no willbender/shock). That's, lets see... Dragonstorm, Word of Seizing, three spells to produce :symr::symr:, and 9 lands in play? We can win under no resistance before turn 15-ish...
Yes and no. There weren't any then, so either way (under that assumption), we'd end up with X sentient creatures. However, since we already have X sentient creatures, what good would starting over do? Mass extinction doesn't necessarily mean that something better happens; regular evolution does that. I'd argue that you can't really assume that anything would evolve in 50 million years that ends up better than humans that humans themselves couldn't do in 50 million years.
No prob. ^^
Well, I stand by my earlier point that Sylar's power and Peter's power are similar, but different. I don't know if it's just harder for Sylar to get his copied powers or if there's a limit to it Peter doesn't have, but I am pretty sure that Sylar can have the powers always work statically, and Peter needs to specifically activate them, making the copy-regen of his worse than a Sylar-copy-regen. ...on the other hand, he can turn them off too, while Sylar seems to be having trouble with his super-hearing.
Willbender works, but if not that, I'd advise not to drop Tefari unless they've already tried to combo out, personally. Try to force through any win condition without him (Urza's Factory or even Withered Wretch after siding works, or wait to drop Vampire the turn after they try to combo out), then just sit back and stop them from comboing out successfully while you take them down..