Magic: The Gathering,GO TEAM MS!

[Thestatusquo]

I think the 1.5ing for 1 that Chamber is referring to is if your opponent uses removal on the creature that is being counterparted in response (in this case, guttersnipe, since that is specifically what you were talking about.) causing you lose that card (1) and half of counterpart (.5)

[Nuwen]

Counterpart is strictly a response to removal targetting my guttersnipes. You don't greedily use it to get a 2nd guttersnipe.

Basically, play counterpart anytime you'd counterspell removal targeting guttersnipe. Think of counterpart a a counterspell that gives me back a vital wincon (a waste of their 1 card, because my win con is on the board for a net trade)

zz

[chamber]

1.5 for 1ing?

What the hell? Soul ransom giver her TWO cards and costs him TWO.

Since she cast a spell that fizzles she only gains 1 NET.

So +1 her -2 him.

I'm not seeing how this is bad.

If they aren't pressured to remove it she just improved her board state and (maybe) triggered a Snipe or talrand.


You say you tried it when this card FIRST came out

That's not the same as now.

If it a card wasn't good when it first came out that doesn't mean it will never be good in the standard enviroment.

Soul ransom didn't exist back then, did Guttersnipe?

I also think your playstyle and sort of decks you use to win with are much too different than Nuwen's for you to fairly give feedback.

Your form of "control" is too white chamber. You are much more reliant on "safety" cards, so obviously you're not going to "get" a deck like Nuwen's.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong here, but would you ever play in Grixis in standard with all cards available to you for free? Would you EVER play Grixis when Sphinx's Revelation exists?

I'm pretty sure the answer is no. You love Sphinx's revelation too much. Its never a dead card right? Its always going to both stabilize you (Safety) AND get you card advantage no matter what right? Its a safe, reliable, good card.

Why would you trade that for risky hand destruction forms of CA and aggressive control tactics?

If I'm coming off as too judgemental here, forgive me because that's not my intentions (I try to understand, not judge), but my reads on this site have been historically better than average. And my read here is that you're being narrow minded because you are speaking from your own playstyle and view of magic, rather than seeing the potential (a more "experimental" attitude, which is what Red blue colors signify) in new decks.

The fact that you don't post "new" decklists but instead "reactively" sit back and judge other decklists shows that you are pretty firmly in Blue white mindset like I was thinking, so understanding a deck that isn't in this colors is hard for you. "Why play risky when you can play safe sphinx's?" is what your subconscious is telling you. Its because risk can pay off if you're willing to make it.

Are we better magic players than you? No. No one's saying that. Obviously you and a lot of other people making comments on nuwen's deck are much more experienced. And that comes into play OFTEN when PLAYING magic. You beat me pretty regular on cockatrice, I'm sure you'd beat Nuwen to. That is NOT proof that her deck design is bad though, it means you played better.

Deck design is more about a puzzle than skill. What beats the meta game? Whats interesting? What will surprise people? I think that's a skill you can have, being inventive and

creative

, without necessarily being good at magic.

I think I've played every combination of 3 or less colors, and every strategy at FNM level. The reason I haven't been posting decks is because I haven't been actively playing standard, so haven't been actively making decks. You are right that deck building and playing are separate skills. I don't even think myself a very good deck builder. You are right that the environment changing can change the viability of cards. I don't think the issues I ran into with counterpart were actually fixed by anything. You and nuwen can always test things for yourselves, if you don't want me to comment on your future decks I wont, but given that you were posting them I assumed you wanted community input.

I think the 1.5ing for 1 that Chamber is referring to is if your opponent uses removal on the creature that is being counterparted in response (in this case, guttersnipe, since that is specifically what you were talking about.) causing you lose that card (1) and half of counterpart (.5)

It was.

Counterpart is strictly a response to removal targetting my guttersnipes. You don't greedily use it to get a 2nd guttersnipe.

Basically, play counterpart anytime you'd counterspell removal targeting guttersnipe. Think of counterpart a a counterspell that gives me back a vital wincon (a waste of their 1 card, because my win con is on the board for a net trade)

zz

If thats the only time you are using it, why isn't it something like negate instead?

[Fate]

Its not the only time she's using it....we just described how it worked with soul ransom in detail....

Negate doesn't stop Abrubt decay, a very prominent card, last time I checked either.

Your comments are fine, input is fine. I'm sure you've experienced every type of deck there is through drafts or what not, that comes with being an experienced player.

I'm just here to debate your input, where I think its coming from, and where I have issues with it. Its called a discussion

[Nuwen]

imo

Negate is less flexible as a mainboard card. Consider: creature-dense decks like Fate's gruul smash, Naya humans, boros humans. I think counterpart as a mainboard puts my deck in a happier place game 1 and will see the most interaction (my game 1 includes soul ransoms).

Negate can't answer threats in what I think are my hardest matchups/strongest meta decks right now: Jung Midrange and Jung Aggro. Abrupt Decay will FUCK up my board state and put my on the back foot in a matchup where I need to be in control of their tempo. I can't lose a beat or I'll get run over by Deathrite Shamans, Huntsmaster, Olivia, Rakdos' Return. These are all HUGE threats that need counterspell slots reserved to answer.

[chamber]

imo

Negate is less flexible as a mainboard card. Consider: creature-dense decks like Fate's gruul smash, Naya humans, boros humans. I think counterpart as a mainboard puts my deck in a happier place game 1 and will see the most interaction (my game 1 includes soul ransoms).

Negate can't answer threats in what I think are my hardest matchups/strongest meta decks right now: Jung Midrange and Jung Aggro. Abrupt Decay will FUCK up my board state and put my on the back foot in a matchup where I need to be in control of their tempo. I can't lose a beat or I'll get run over by Deathrite Shamans, Huntsmaster, Olivia, Rakdos' Return. These are all HUGE threats that need counterspell slots reserved to answer.

Unsummon?

[Fate]

Cheaper, also flexible and can deal with enemy threats (tempoing them, not dealing really).

But its also less aggressive, in "save my snipe" mode.

If she has to REPLAY her Guttersnipe.. thats a huge tempo loss. She just lost 3 mana she could've held up for a counterspell to deal with their thragtusk olivia/huntmaster that's about to land. It means she caan play her guttersnipe on turn 4 with a Blue mana up to protect it, yeah, but ideally she destroyes their hand first, then plays snipe safely into anything except a topdecked abrupt decay (which happens so it happens). Every turn after that she can keep up the pressure and not lose tempo with unsummon.

Like I said, riskier, but can pay off more (keeping a snipe on the field as opposed to having to replay him). Maybe playing both in the deck would pay off even more though. Its a good suggestion for sure

[Nuwen]

I think in my deck counterpart > ghostly flicker > unsummon. Recasting guttersnipes just isn't an option. The tempo loss is pretty significant. On-tempo options like counterpart and flicker keep him in play, safe, AND proc.

[chamber]

I think in my deck counterpart > ghostly flicker > unsummon. Recasting guttersnipes just isn't an option. The tempo loss is pretty significant. On-tempo options like counterpart and flicker keep him in play, safe, AND proc.

I don't really understand the tempo argument. You are spending 3 mana for counterpart and 1+3 for unsummon and replay. You are spending both on your turn unless you play vs baddies who try to use instant speed removal on your guys when its their turn not your own. If anything unsummon lets you be more flexible because it only demands you spend 1 mana in response, and lets you spend the 3 mana whenever its most convenient.

[Fate]

Unsummon saves them from board wipes, which flicker and counterpart cant do. Its probably a great option against jund, can remove their olivias that are too strong as well, and stop their bonfires

[Sudo_Nym]

Unsummon is also a lot more flexible, in that it can bounce more than just Guttersnipe, if necessary. Cackling Counterpart and Ghostly Flicker don't do anything but protect Guttersnipe; Negate and Izzet Charm can largely duplicate that functionality, outside of Abrupt Decay and Supreme Verdict.

[Thestatusquo]

I would like to note that it is not always incorrect to cast instants (even removal) on your turn.

[chamber]

I would like to note that it is not always incorrect to cast instants (even removal) on your turn.

Sure. The assumption is that nuwen has at least 3 mana open. Given that, its normally right to wait for the upkeep.

[Fate]

Turns out the entire last page was a waste... since we were arguing with the basis that Soul Ransom, once its cost was paid, caused the creature to be sacrificed.

WHOOPS

Yeah its just another bad vexing devil esque card...


Fucking hell, and apologies.

Nuwen got another Augur last night so yay

[NabakovNabakov]

This, however, is a perfect illustration of Soul Ransom's usefulness as a card (at least for the time being). Its text is such a grammatical clusterfuck that for people who aren't already familiar with its effect, seeing it on the board is going to be disorienting and potentially even lead them to play based on a misconception (like the idea that 'paying the ransom' kills the creature, when it really gives it back). If your deck is supposed to be a mindfuck, there's a lot to be said for playing a card your opponent has to read twice, then boarding it out.

I mean, what's wrong with: "Discard two cards: Soul Ransom's controller draws two cards, then sacrifices Soul Ransom."? The opponents only clause isn't really necessary. If I want to give my opponent their creature back in exchange for a shitty double-looter, I should be able to.

[hasdgfas]

At that point it's double-rummage instead of double-loot, because you're discarding first.

[Thestatusquo]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with magic analysis quite as much as I disagree with what Nabnab just said. Strategies such as the one he is describing only have utility at a very base level. If I am taking such a deck to a tournament, and my decks power relies on my opponents not understanding the interactions well enough to play correctly, then I will beat bad opponents some large percentage of the time and I will lose to good opponents some large percentage of the time. However, if I am playing tight, with a deck with a reasonable power level without any absolutely horrendously bad matchups and a solid side board plan for those matchups which are unfavorable, I will also beat the bad players some large percentage of the time, without having to resort to smoke and mirrors, and, I will by the same token have vastly improved my matchups against the good players.

Since I am, I think, pretty good at magic, I would much rather the barrier for beating me be "Play magic better than I do" instead of "see through my gimmicks."

[Sudo_Nym]

Assuming your opponent doesn't know the card is a ridiculous strategy, since a good opponent probably knows all the cards anyway, and a smart opponent is aware that he's allowed to read the card in any event. So the strategy really only works against opponents who are bad enough or inexperienced enough that they don't know the cards, and dumb enough that they won't ask to read it; and if your opponent falls into those categories, you should be able to just beat them with a better card anyway.

[Thestatusquo]

That might be what I just said.

[Sudo_Nym]

Possible; I generally tune you out, though, so I'll never know for sure

[Thestatusquo]

Is that why you're so bad at magic?

[Sudo_Nym]

Kicked your ass.

[Thestatusquo]

small sample size.

[Fate]

Words

Less eloquent words, but saying the same thing

I lol'd

[Nuwen]

Whooooops.

Played Soul Ransom illegally at an official tournament at least a dozen times. Even one of the judges seemed to acknowledge the effect as-played though. If nothing else it proves that true conviction can do ANYTHING.