Author
|
Topic: Post for Magic Stuff #78, where everyone gets a soda
|
Bugger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 08:33 AM
done.
|
revenger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 11:49 AM
Could I actually build a winning standard deck for under $30? __________________ 33rd in refs on Motl! #1 Ref's for Arizona! I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested. Your 2008, 2010 & 2012 Siskel & Ebert award winner! Your Motl runner-up in My Cousin Vinny & Rolling Stone Award!
|
Bugger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 11:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by revenger: Could I actually build a winning standard deck for under $30?
depends on what you're trying to win
|
harbingerofthevoid Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 11:56 AM
http://mtgpulse.com/event/12129#170026Maybe that swapping the Stomping Grounds for basics or Evolving Wilds?
|
revenger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 11:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Bugger: depends on what you're trying to win
FNM/Standard constructed event. Not ness win it all, but don't want to get crushed 0 ~ 2 and do a single point of damage between 2 games. __________________ 33rd in refs on Motl! #1 Ref's for Arizona! I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested. Your 2008, 2010 & 2012 Siskel & Ebert award winner! Your Motl runner-up in My Cousin Vinny & Rolling Stone Award!
|
yakusoku Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 12:15 PM
I'd play Red Deck Wins. It's your best chance on < $30.This should be close to that amount or less: 4 Rakdos Cackler 4 Stromkirk Noble 3 Stonewright 4 Lightning Mauler 4 Ash Zealot 4 Rakdos Shred-Freak 3 Pyreheart Wolf 4 Pillar of Flame 4 Searing Spear 4 Brimstone Volley 22 Mountain
|
flam flawless Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 01:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by yakusoku: I'd play Red Deck Wins. It's your best chance on < $30.This should be close to that amount or less: 4 Rakdos Cackler 4 Stromkirk Noble 3 Stonewright 4 Lightning Mauler 4 Ash Zealot 4 Rakdos Shred-Freak 3 Pyreheart Wolf 4 Pillar of Flame 4 Searing Spear 4 Brimstone Volley 22 Mountain
except for about 3/4 of the field nowadays runs that reckoner guy that you have nothing against except a 2/1. Edit - I'd consider trying Boros with some O-Rings and some of the gates with the 3/2 dude etc etc
[Edited 1 times, lastly by flam flawless on February 19, 2013]
|
revenger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 01:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by flam flawless: except for about 3/4 of the field nowadays runs that reckoner guy that you have nothing against except a 2/1.Edit - I'd consider trying Boros with some O-Rings and some of the gates with the 3/2 dude etc etc
3/2 dude? __________________ 33rd in refs on Motl! #1 Ref's for Arizona! I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested. Your 2008, 2010 & 2012 Siskel & Ebert award winner! Your Motl runner-up in My Cousin Vinny & Rolling Stone Award!
|
flam flawless Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 02:17 PM
Wojak Halberdiers or something like that
|
revenger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 02:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by flam flawless: Wojak Halberdiers or something like that
wojek halberdiers. I looked it up~ ok what bout skyknight legionaire for boros? Might be able to get some boros charms...do they belong in the deck? and if so, how many? __________________ 33rd in refs on Motl! #1 Ref's for Arizona! I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested. Your 2008, 2010 & 2012 Siskel & Ebert award winner! Your Motl runner-up in My Cousin Vinny & Rolling Stone Award!
|
flam flawless Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 02:40 PM
charms are a 4 pack if you can get them. I like legionnaire as well.EDIT - basically what I ran in draft was a hurried up offence of NAYA - the 3/1 bloodrush guys, the wojek guys etc. Not sure what they'll do in a format of $300-500 decks, but what the heck right? All about the random W :P
[Edited 1 times, lastly by flam flawless on February 19, 2013]
|
fedorables Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 04:20 PM
If you're looking for cheap cards (monetary wise) and are considering Battalion, I'd also suggest considering Firemane Avenger. They're pretty cheap, have some evasiveness, and can burn a Reckoner. Yeah, you'll take the 3 somewhere, but it's something if you don't have anything else. Just a thought.__________________ ლ(ಠ益ಠლ This signature belongs to fedorables. Please return if found.
|
revenger Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 04:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by fedorables: If you're looking for cheap cards (monetary wise) and are considering Battalion, I'd also suggest considering Firemane Avenger. They're pretty cheap, have some evasiveness, and can burn a Reckoner. Yeah, you'll take the 3 somewhere, but it's something if you don't have anything else. Just a thought.
yeah was seriously lookin @ Firemanes. They stuff Geist traft as well. I fear I,ll be facing a multiude of reckoners tho. __________________ 33rd in refs on Motl! #1 Ref's for Arizona! I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested. Your 2008, 2010 & 2012 Siskel & Ebert award winner! Your Motl runner-up in My Cousin Vinny & Rolling Stone Award!
|
dfitzg88 Member
|
posted February 19, 2013 07:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by revenger: FNM/Standard constructed event. Not ness win it all, but don't want to get crushed 0 ~ 2 and do a single point of damage between 2 games.
since messenger and gravecrawler are down to like 4 bucks each, you can play a fairly aggressive zombie list that will be fine if people aren't throwing around too many thragtusks. unfortunately it's not so cheap when you add Red for the GOOD cards (falkenrath aristocrat mainly). 23 Swamp 4 Blood Artist 4 Diregraf Ghoul 4 Geralf's Messenger 4 Gravecrawler 4 Knight of Infamy 4 Vampire Nighthawk 2 Thrull Parasite 2 Bloodflow Connoisseur 1 Underworld Connections 2 Victim of Night 3 Ultimate Price 2 Tragic Slip 1 Tribute to Hunger still, a deck like this has some reach and can blast people who don't have enough early plays.
|
rockondon Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 12:30 AM
awesome. I love the title.
|
AEther Storm Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 04:12 AM
I got into my first finals on Magic Online last night! Lost 2-1 though, again with the color-screw (a 2nd mountain would've destroyed him), but it was finally a good night! Only 2 mulligans and 1 color-screw! Plus a Jace Memory Adept and some more goodies that got me 15 tix, free draft! I'm so proud.Does anyone else has the same problem that he/she gets colorscrewed/manascrewed/mulliganscrewed on Online? I get it a LOT. And yes, I play 17 lands and not 5 colors each time. btw, nderdog, are you on Online as well? I beat someone with username underdog1 last night, but it could be anyone of course. __________________ /Thunder in the wind/No rain/Peace mourns its passing/"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
|
WeedIan Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 04:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by AEther Storm: I got into my first finals on Magic Online last night! Lost 2-1 though, again with the color-screw (a 2nd mountain would've destroyed him), but it was finally a good night! Only 2 mulligans and 1 color-screw! Plus a Jace Memory Adept and some more goodies that got me 15 tix, free draft! I'm so proud.Does anyone else has the same problem that he/she gets colorscrewed/manascrewed/mulliganscrewed on Online? I get it a LOT. And yes, I play 17 lands and not 5 colors each time. btw, nderdog, are you on Online as well? I beat someone with username underdog1 last night, but it could be anyone of course.
I uninstalled Modo last night because of the same thing. Modo makes magic feel like work rather than playing a fun game. __________________ Member Since 03/28/2001 12000+ posts 1st in posts in Ontario 2nd in posts in Canada 10th in posts on MOTL 5th in Refs in Ontario Pushing to get to top 100 in MOTL Refs
|
caquaa Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by AEther Storm: Does anyone else has the same problem that he/she gets colorscrewed/manascrewed/mulliganscrewed on Online? I get it a LOT
yep, sure do. Also get it with real cards. It should be random when you shuffle the real thing too, random doesn't mean average.
|
AEther Storm Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 01:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by WeedIan: I uninstalled Modo last night because of the same thing. Modo makes magic feel like work rather than playing a fun game.
quote: Originally posted by caquaa: yep, sure do. Also get it with real cards. It should be random when you shuffle the real thing too, random doesn't mean average.
I rarely have it in real life, but it happens sometimes. Rarely more than twice in one tournament. But online, it's more often than not. I makes me think to play 41 cards adding an 18th land.. (I'm fresh on MODO btw, if you haven't figured that out yet..)
|
revenger Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 01:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by AEther Storm: I got into my first finals on Magic Online last night! Lost 2-1 though, again with the color-screw (a 2nd mountain would've destroyed him), but it was finally a good night! Only 2 mulligans and 1 color-screw! Plus a Jace Memory Adept and some more goodies that got me 15 tix, free draft! I'm so proud.Does anyone else has the same problem that he/she gets colorscrewed/manascrewed/mulliganscrewed on Online? I get it a LOT. And yes, I play 17 lands and not 5 colors each time. btw, nderdog, are you on Online as well? I beat someone with username underdog1 last night, but it could be anyone of course.
One of the reason why i dont do anything on modo other than momir basic. (no one does mojo or mojos anymore ) I don't even contruct any deck for any format. __________________ 33rd in refs on Motl! #1 Ref's for Arizona! I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested. Your 2008, 2010 & 2012 Siskel & Ebert award winner! Your Motl runner-up in My Cousin Vinny & Rolling Stone Award!
|
caquaa Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 03:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by AEther Storm: I rarely have it in real life, but it happens sometimes. Rarely more than twice in one tournament. But online, it's more often than not. I makes me think to play 41 cards adding an 18th land.. (I'm fresh on MODO btw, if you haven't figured that out yet..)
if you rarely are getting screwed w/ real cards, you should shuffle better. I've played 25-26 land control decks and have drawn zero lands, it happens. The decision between 16, 17, and 18 lands should be made by your mana curve. I played last night w/ 3x 6 mana bombs and 4x 5cc creatures so I decided 18 lands was enough to make sure the bombs came online.
|
yakusoku Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 06:04 PM
Lots of people are quick to jump on the MTGO shuffler bandwagon, without thinking that perhaps the digital experience doesn't reflect their offline one because in real life, they are experiencing problems LESS often than they should.Few people want to explore that possibility, but I think it's a legitimate theory. I've seen people scoop up all their lands and "seed" them into their deck, riffle shuffle once or twice and done. You might not be randomizing *enough* and experience fewer problems, actually. Also, I've found that many people who haven't taken statistics courses don't understand probability, variation, and randomness. Some people believe that adequate shuffling should mean an EVEN distribution throughout the deck, like this if you run 18 lands and 22 spells: S S L S S L S S L S S L ... On a similar note, this is *more* randomized: S S L S L L S S L S L L But, note that there isn't a subsequence of more than two spells or lands. If you call over a judge because you think your opponent is stacking his deck and the distribution looks like either of these two, I suspect a judge would want to take your opponent aside and ask just how he's shuffling his deck before presenting it. Random distribution will likely include some clumps, pockets, or whatever you want to call it that lead to getting mana screw or flood. So, you might get an opening of: S S L L S L L and figure this is an ideal hand, only to discover the top 20 cards of your library (including your opening hand) actually is: S S L L S L L L L S L L S S S S L S L S If you're playing 18 lands, 45% of your cards are lands and you can expect to see 9 lands in the top 20 on average. Getting 10 is still a pretty normal number to find, but after five turns of only seeing on spell, when you kept a four-land hand, it can be very frustrating and lead you to believe that the shuffler is inherently flawed. However, an emotional visceral reaction is totally normal; I understand the math behind it and still sometimes rant when I run 24 creatures in a 60 card deck and manage to go through 12 cards and only see 2, when I know that the expected value is closer to five. Also, a taboo that not enough people want to touch is that even if you have enough lands and even if you randomize just fine, it's possible you have problems because your deck is suboptimal. Getting a 4th 6-drop when you draft Gruul may make your deck on average stronger, but it may likely be that you should have taken a random Gray Ogre instead. You need to play A LOT and get a very big sample size to see if online there's more color screw than should be expected, and even if you do statistically find that is the case, you still haven't established a cause. It may very well be that the shuffler is prone to problems. It also may be that you are trying to jam in cards that cost 1WW, 2GG, 3RG, 4RR, GW, and RR all into the same deck and maybe it's not all the problem of MTGO that you got two forests for your double green spells, a plains a mountain, and couldn't play your 1WW and RR spells.
|
evilempire22 Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by yakusoku: Lots of people are quick to jump on the MTGO shuffler bandwagon, without thinking that perhaps the digital experience doesn't reflect their offline one because in real life, they are experiencing problems LESS often than they should.Few people want to explore that possibility, but I think it's a legitimate theory. I've seen people scoop up all their lands and "seed" them into their deck, riffle shuffle once or twice and done. You might not be randomizing *enough* and experience fewer problems, actually. Also, I've found that many people who haven't taken statistics courses don't understand probability, variation, and randomness. Some people believe that adequate shuffling should mean an EVEN distribution throughout the deck, like this if you run 18 lands and 22 spells: S S L S S L S S L S S L ... On a similar note, this is *more* randomized: S S L S L L S S L S L L But, note that there isn't a subsequence of more than two spells or lands. If you call over a judge because you think your opponent is stacking his deck and the distribution looks like either of these two, I suspect a judge would want to take your opponent aside and ask just how he's shuffling his deck before presenting it. Random distribution will likely include some clumps, pockets, or whatever you want to call it that lead to getting mana screw or flood. So, you might get an opening of: S S L L S L L and figure this is an ideal hand, only to discover the top 20 cards of your library (including your opening hand) actually is: S S L L S L L L L S L L S S S S L S L S If you're playing 18 lands, 45% of your cards are lands and you can expect to see 9 lands in the top 20 on average. Getting 10 is still a pretty normal number to find, but after five turns of only seeing on spell, when you kept a four-land hand, it can be very frustrating and lead you to believe that the shuffler is inherently flawed. However, an emotional visceral reaction is totally normal; I understand the math behind it and still sometimes rant when I run 24 creatures in a 60 card deck and manage to go through 12 cards and only see 2, when I know that the expected value is closer to five. Also, a taboo that not enough people want to touch is that even if you have enough lands and even if you randomize just fine, it's possible you have problems because your deck is suboptimal. Getting a 4th 6-drop when you draft Gruul may make your deck on average stronger, but it may likely be that you should have taken a random Gray Ogre instead. You need to play A LOT and get a very big sample size to see if online there's more color screw than should be expected, and even if you do statistically find that is the case, you still haven't established a cause. It may very well be that the shuffler is prone to problems. It also may be that you are trying to jam in cards that cost 1WW, 2GG, 3RG, 4RR, GW, and RR all into the same deck and maybe it's not all the problem of MTGO that you got two forests for your double green spells, a plains a mountain, and couldn't play your 1WW and RR spells.
I was just about to say the same thing...though you did it in more words --Evil __________________ I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
|
caquaa Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:58 PM
an orc linked an article about shuffling when someone complained. It was stated that it took between 6 to 7 riffle shuffles to randomize a 52 card deck. Not sure how close that applies to a 60 card deck, or even a 40, but I don't think most people shuffle that many times. Then there is a whole other issue about used sleeves sticking together and such... yuck.
|
Pail42 Member
|
posted February 20, 2013 09:42 PM
Anybody got a fun uncommon or bulk rare suggestion to build a deck around? I'm stuck in a rut. Every deck I start to brainstorm lately always seems to end up wanting 4x Blood Artist and 4x Lingering Souls, but I don't have a playset of either. Poop.quote: Originally posted by caquaa: Then there is a whole other issue about used sleeves sticking together and such... yuck.
I've noticed that my sleeved lands pick up more gunk than my other cards. Probably because I handle them so often tapping and untapping.
| |