Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.16927945 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Problem, Burn decks?

>> No.16927957

not really. we'll just burn your face.

>> No.16927959

You are a terrible at magic

>> No.16927973

>implying masques was good for anything in any format except Masques/Invasion standard
>implying burn is a viable strategy
>implying this card actually counters burn spells going for your head

>> No.16927984

>In response to the +3, more burn
>Whyyouplayshitcard.jpg

>> No.16927988

>>16927984
In response to more burn, another +3.

>> No.16927995

>>16927984

see

>>16927959

>> No.16928003

>Playing my sick new burn build faggot comes in with a white deck
>Expect to lose because protection, protection everywhere
>He plays this piece of shit Task Force card with the smuggest, shit-eating grin ever
>Completely ignore it and ping him for five damage every turn
>He's hitting me for one

laughingchandras.jpg

>> No.16928021

I'll teach you, you smug fucker

>> No.16928024

Equip it and another creature with Lightning Greaves repeatedly. Give it infinite toughness.
Momentous Fall.
Infinite life.

It's still a shitty card, OP.

>> No.16928027

burn doesn't care about creatures because burn goes directly to the dome, as long as you're dealing more damage than your opponent is, it doesn't need to go for your creatures

>> No.16928032 [DELETED] 

conglaturations, you have a creature that can swing for 1 damage, coast 3 mana, and does not represent any danger to burn decks.

>> No.16928045

congratulations, you have a creature that can swing for 1 damage, coast 3 mana, and does not represent any danger to burn decks.

>> No.16928048

>>16927959
That's what they say - /tg/ is a suck at magic

>> No.16928057

>>16927945
problem NOW burn decks?

>> No.16928080

>>16928057
No. Still no problem. I'll just step over you.

>> No.16928104

sup rdw, oh i see you're the strongest you've been in 15 years? that's pretty cool, but have you seen my soldier tokens?

>> No.16928105

>>16928080
>Implying he can drop me from 800 billion with just burn.

>> No.16928112

>>16928080
>he's never seen life.dec
>laughingclerics.jpg

>> No.16928119

>>16928105
>Shock

>> No.16928125

>>16928057
Here's the thing op. A burn deck doesn't need to aim for your creatures. They aim for YOU. So your creatures that get all these effects by being targeted aren't getting their effects.

>> No.16928136

>>16928105
>Implying you can combo before burn whips you

>> No.16928143

>LIFEDECK
>>16928112
see
>>16927959

>> No.16928150

>>16928136
Turn 3 I go infinite life.

Turn 2 with Mox Diamond/Chrome Mox.

Yep, Burn totally races me.

>> No.16928161

>>16928057
If you sacrifice it, I don't think you can "negate damage" to it because no damage was done to it. It was simply sacrificed. Yes?

>> No.16928176

>>16928150
Which means you'll need three different cards by turn three, or four plus a land by turn two. Seeing as you're running white, white, and more white, I don't see that happening very often.

>> No.16928179

>>16928150

>"Just wait till I get my Krark-Clan Ironworks, Genesis Chamber, and Grinding Station. Oh yeah, and a second Myr Retriever..."

>> No.16928198

>>16928143
>>16928136
no /tg/ it is you who is terrible at magic.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mf24

major players in extended (once upon a time) aren't terrible, turns out.

>> No.16928203

>>16928143
>doesn't know what life.dec is
see
>>16927959

>> No.16928217

>>16928198
yeah, we're talking about legacy

>> No.16928230

>>16928217
>implying format was ever mentioned once in this thread
you shut up, sir.

>> No.16928246

>>16928230
>implying you cant deduce it from the thread
But yeah, lifegain usually is viable on limited formats
Like soul sisters

>> No.16928248

>>16928057

I lost to RDW once playing Cephalife. Same guy who beat me went to a GP with RDW and placed like 10th... besting Oiso (who was playing Cephalife) on the way up.

I changed to Affinity and placed like 60th :|

>> No.16928250

>>16928198
And that's what Sulfuric Vortex is for. Or Rain of Gore. Or Stigma Lasher.

>> No.16928279

>>16928048
>That's what they say - /tg/ is a suck at magic

And they never fail to prove it.

>> No.16928292

>this whole thread
see
>>16927959

>> No.16928319

>>16927959
>>16928048
>>16928143
>>16928203
>>16928279
>>16928292
You know, I might be wrong here, but maybe /tg/ wouldn't be so bad at magic if you fucks ever actually discussed it, instead of just implying that everyone else sucks. Just a thought.

>> No.16928338

>>16928319
no, we've tried that, it ends up devolving into a back and forth of two parties that both have less of a clue than the other, in a downward spiral of ignorance and terrible play.

i think it's a feature of /tg/, any prolonged magic discussion just slowly siphons the knowledge of the game out of its participants.

>> No.16928374

>>16928338
Yeah, I guess you're right. Still, it's gotta be better than the same five chucklefucks yelling 'LOL YOU SO BAD' without ever explaining themselves or offering solutions. I mean, don't we hold ourselves to a higher standard than /v/?

>> No.16928393

>>16928374
No, it really isn't. It's worse than a D&D 3.5 discussion involving wizards. Everyone assumes that they have the exact card required to counter their opponent's debate, in their hand, with the resources required to play/use it to the max, exactly one turn earlier than their opponent somehow.

Seriously, they'll say something like "I can totally counter that because I'll have Telepathy out and know exactly what you're going to do". it's fucking horrifying.

>> No.16928428

>>16928393
Oh yeah those are awful. I would argue that's not really discussion, though. It's just godhand mental magic dick waving.

Oh well, maybe we're just incapable of actual discussion outside AAJ threads. Those are usually pretty well-mannered.

>> No.16928434

/tg/ = bad at magic is an old meme, pretty outdated at this point with ask a judge threads and such. There are a bunch of people who aren't good at competitive magic here, yes, but there are also people who do know what they are talking about. Competitive magic isn't the end all be all of magic anyway. Complaining about a lack of perceived magic skill in /tg/ is the best way to ensure that magic discussion on /tg/ doesn't further progress

Also, burn isn't a strategy really. Burn just is something that can clear the way for your attackers, OR can be used on the opponent's face to finish the game. The versatility is key. Task force would probably slow down a sligh type deck at least some, but it definitely doesn't win the game in the slightest.

>> No.16928464

>>16928393
that's not always what's bad, sometimes they'll just completely misinterpret or ignore the rules, or do something like OP, where they propose a "solution" that has nothing to do with the problem.

>> No.16928510

>>16928464
Shouldn't we be helping those people out? Explaining to them how it really works, or why a card like OP's isn't a good solution? Just yelling at them that they are terrible at the game doesn't help anyone, and certainly doesn't decrease the number of truly incapable players.

I don't know, maybe I've just come to expect more from this board than I do from the others.

>> No.16928534

>>16928510
the few instances i've seen people try, the ignorant debate why their terrible ideas are right, and argue with quoted parts of the comp rules by debating semantics and using poor comprehension. i'm kinda impressed that the AAJ threads didn't get shot down by a group of chucklefucks with no reading comprehension.

>> No.16928548

>>16928534
Ugh, you're right. I guess we ARE incapable of rational discussion. How depressing.

>> No.16928563

>>16927945
Not especially.

>> No.16928585

>>16928534
>>16928548
Goddamnit you two, don't give up.

Okay, try explaining to just me why OP's card would not work well at slowing RDW down. I have somewhat solid general magic knowledge, but abysmal metagame knowledge. I promise I have reading comprehension and am rational.

>> No.16928607

>>16928585
because they're not going to target the task force with any spells. The combo might work, if they can get it to go off, but other than that..

>> No.16928616

I posted the Task Force mainly because it's a component in life.dec - something I looked into, goldfished a wee bit and had a laugh with. I didn't intend on destroying every established metagame for every format.

You people have taken this too far.

>> No.16928630

>>16928585
>Okay, try explaining to just me why OP's card would not work well at slowing RDW down

On its own that card can at least slow rdw down because rdw uses creatures.

Without the rest of the combo it's mostly useless against burn because burn will just ignore it.

>> No.16928638

>>16928585
Because there's no reason for task force to be in any deck. EVER. I'm not even going to bother explaining the obvious in-game stuff. Task force does not fit into any deck, especially Legacy/Vintage decks which are the only ones it can legally be in. Against any opponent, a 2W 1/3 creature is a bad investment. Against burn decks specifically, anything with "protection from red" is LEAGUES better than task force's rules. And protection from red is also much more multipurpose.

This is why. Everything about OP stinks of failure.

>> No.16928659

>Keep talking about formats
>Assume every game of magic, ever, uses established formats

>> No.16928673

>>16928638
>Legacy/Vintage decks which are the only ones it can legally be in
See, this is where the problem comes in. The VAST majority of magic players play non-format/'vintage' casual. How bad a card is in a tournament format is irrelevant to them.

>> No.16928682

>>16928659
Every game of magic does. If you aren't sure what format you're using, it's Vintage. Your ignorance doesn't change anything.

>> No.16928693

>>16928682
>If you aren't sure what format you're using, it's Vintage

You sure?

Cos I run a full playset of Strip Mines...

>> No.16928695

>>16928682
What if I'm using falling star?

>> No.16928703

>>16928607
>>16928630
Isn't it okay then, just because it's a blocker that can't be bolted out of the way? Granted, it's a 3 drop, so it's probably too late for what it does.

>>16928638
Ah yes, that is a wonderful point. Almost strictly worse than pro-red outside of the combo. Thank you for the explanation.

Mind explaining to me why it doesn't fit in life deck? Is life deck bad?
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mf24

>> No.16928705

>>16928682
no. no they don't, and you are wrong.

learn 2 casual.

>> No.16928709

>>16928659

Competitive play uses formats. Outside of competitive play, it's just a bunch of people playing bad decks. Why would I play against bad players that are playing bad decks? What's the point?

>> No.16928724

>>16928673
And if someone doesn't care how bad a card is, or how bad their deck is, then there's absolutely no reason for them to be arguing about it on /tg/ trying to say how good it is.

If you argue about something being good or bad in Magic, you cannot argue it from any set of specifications except in a competitive format. Saying Pit Lord is the best card ever because you beat your friends, and none of you use those "cheesy" new expansions is wrong. Not a matter of opinion, but objectively and empirically wrong.

>> No.16928743

>>16928709
>Outside of competitive play, it's just a bunch of people playing bad decks

You are everything wrong with Magic. You assume non-tourney players are country bumpkins who don't run anything competative/cutthroat.

>> No.16928744

>>16928659
>>16928673
If you are playing casually, then it's pretty hard to talk about any card being good or bad. How can you talk about how a card performs in a metagame if there is no metagame to speak of? We don't know what decks your friends play. It makes a lot more sense to talk about official formats

>> No.16928751

>>16928703
>Isn't it okay then, just because it's a blocker that can't be bolted out of the way?

There are plenty of walls out there that would serve that purpose better, and people generally don't run creatures just because they are good blockers anyway. You have to actually kill your opponent at some point.

Even as a sideboard option against monored there's no reason to run task force over timely reinforcements or kor firewalker, it's only good because of the combo.

>> No.16928760

>>16928743
>>You assume non-tourney players are country bumpkins who don't run anything competative/cutthroat.

It's generally true.

>> No.16928763

>>16928743
He didn't say tourney, he said competitive. And he's right. if you aren't playing with the intention of winning (not competitively) then you're either playing bad, playing a bad deck, or both. So many times, I play people who "built a fun deck", and it's no fun for anyone. The outcome is predetermined because they are so ridiculously outclassed, and "fun decks" never get to have fun in this game - they're simply shut down too fast.

You assume wrong because you don't actually play magic at your LGS anymore.

>> No.16928767

>>16928743
have you ever seen the decks people post on /tg/

>> No.16928774

>>16928743
>Outside of competitive play

>You assume non-tourney players are country bumpkins who don't run anything competative

He didn't assume, he outright stated that as the specification of his statement. If they aren't running something competitive, they are not playing something competitively. This literally cannot be argued, to interpret it any other way would be to create a paradox.

You're an idiot.

>> No.16928782

>>16928724
>If you argue about something being good or bad in Magic, you cannot argue it from any set of specifications except in a competitive format.

yes you can. there is more the the game that formats and metagame consideration. it's been pointed out that task force is worse against burn/rdw than anything with pro red. this is true regardless of format, regardless of play style, and regardless of how competitive someone intends to play. there are objective judgements that can be made of cards and strategies that are just as true in casual play as in sanctioned formats. to assume all casual players have no valid input is a disservice to the entire discussion.

>> No.16928784

>>16928751
Okay, thanks, that makes sense.

And people really don't run defensive creatures? It seems like a good idea to me, to stall until you can draw your win condition(s)... Wasn't plumeveil played?

>> No.16928791

>>16928767
?

>> No.16928801

>>16928464
here, i completely forgot the tourneyfags who refuse to discuss casual games like they're a real thing. thanks for reminding me /tg/. truly, you are terrible at magic. never let the story die.

>> No.16928806

>>16928791

If you're going to play without restrictions, much better decks can be made.

>> No.16928808

>>16928784
People don't run creatures whose only goal and use is to block a single opponent. People might run a blocking creature if it could stop an infinite amount of tokens, and people DEFINITELY run chump blockers wtih "on death" effects that are awesome.

But more to the point, nobody would ever run a 3 mana creature with a shitty ability and 1 power, just because it can block. Because any number of infinitely better creatures can have an effect on the game, AND block.

>> No.16928810

>>16928744
I understand that, but it doesn't mean we should compare everyone who plays magic to the professional competitive standard. To put it another way, how much is accomplished in telling an amateur boxer he sucks compared to Mike Tyson? Nothing.

>> No.16928811

>>16928784
>And people really don't run defensive creatures?

Generally not, most of the time defensive creatures are only used when they are good defensively and good for something else.

Plumeveil has four power, it can kill the stuff that you block with it, and it has flash so you can just flash it in after attackers are declared.

>> No.16928828

>>16928806
>If you're going to play without restrictions, much better decks can be made.

Obviously, but I don't have the untold thousands a full playset of Power 9 would cost.

Also, what's the point in turn-1 wins every game outside of a tourney environment?

>> No.16928843

>>16928810
Player posts kitchen table deck, asks us how to improve it. How the fuck can you answer? They obviously don't want to beat the shit out of their friends all the time or spend 9001 dollars on their deck. You don't know how powerful their friends' decks are, what they have to deal with/play against, what they would find fun to play. You can't give them ANY relevant advice. That's why casual magic is hard to discuss, and why talking about a cards' power in a format is much more sensible

>> No.16928869

>>16928808
Thank you, that makes sense.

Now, to all the magic on /tg/ haters, was that so bad? I asked some genuine questions and got good answers. Why do you give up on /tg/ magic? I've been on this board for awhile, and it has definitely improved, in large part due to AAJ. The only way to guarantee that /tg/ magic discussion stays subpar is if our experience players are aloof and disengaged.

>> No.16928883

>>16928828

Why not pick a standard so you have a level playing field?

Seems pretty stupid to insist on "no limits" then complain when people play something degenerate... meanwhile, all the standards don't allow what you're complaining about.

>> No.16928885

>>16928782
The very term casual play means that no, nothing can be objectively better or worse than anything else. The entire point is that both you and your opponent make whatever deck you want from whatever cards you want. As soon as you begin saying that things are better or worse for casual, you are beginning to play it competitively.

I could run 4x Black Lotus Channel Fireball Turn 0-1 win condition decks in "Casual" (the format), but it is not playing casual.

Even if you're one of those people who take the middle of the road approach, saying that casual is about building a deck that is strong, but not /too/ strong, then the game is not even about MtG anymore. As soon as you put in a flexible boundary based on "cheesiness", whoever wins the game isn't the person with the most skill, but the person who is most willing to get as close as possible to that cheesiness barrier without going over. This is not a suitable grounds for objectively debating what is good or bad either, for obvious reasons.


Either you are a person who is willing to deal with competitive meaning what it does, and work within the written rules, or you are not. If you are not, then you cannot argue something and expect anyone to take it seriously. That's the end of it.

>> No.16928909

>>16928883
We play with what we have. We've got strictly casuals, old-school semi-vets and some new fledglings - a mix of everything. It's just a casual group, not held in a Games Store. Putting restrictions on what people can and can't use just drives casual groups apart.

>> No.16928913

>>16928828
Sorry, but you're a prime example of why so much MtG debate goes nowhere.

If you aren't debating things from the qualifications of a competitive game, in a specified format, then it's all a pissing contest because nobody is on the same page. In a game where you limit yourself based on "cheesiness", the person who is willing to be the cheesiest will always win.

>> No.16928929

>>16928909
I have a turn 0 win legacy deck.

And I'm one of those guys who revels in winning, even at the expense of my opponents.

I'm going to bring my friends too, okay? Great. How's your casual group looking now?

>> No.16928930

>>16928808
Exactly. To wit, this is the kind of creature you can get for *less* mana than Task Force these days.

>> No.16928932

>>16928909
I sincerely doubt following the Vintage B&R list is going to drive a group apart

>> No.16928937

>>16928930
damn it captcha

damn it flood detection

>> No.16928941

>>16928929
I've got Forces. I don't really mind.

>> No.16928945

>>16928843
>implying you can't give advice, ask a poster what kind of budget they're looking for, or point out deficiencies in their deck and let them decide for themselves what's reasonable for their metagame
>implying that kind of back and forth isn't what makes a discussion

you're an idiot. if someone asks how to improve their deck, you tell them how to improve their deck. if they like your ideas, they can make the changes, if they don't, they won't. that's just as true of a casual deck as any tournament deck. if your suggestions won't improve their success in their metagame, they don't have to take them. this is true when discussing sanctioned games in a local region or a metagame made up of a group of friends.

nothing is different when discussing casual decks and tournament decks except your perception of it, and how likely someone is to take your suggestions. if a casual player just says "no" when you tell them how to improve their deck that's just as bad as someone saying "no" when you tell them how to improve a deck for FNM. both are stupid and not going to be helped. if a casual player turns down a suggestion because its out of their budget, that's just as valid as someone turning down a suggestion for their budget competitive deck. If someone turns down a card because it's beyond the power level for their local metagame, adjust your sights down, it's no different than if you make a suggestion for hat you assume is a vintage deck and it's pointed out it's actually for legacy.

just about every other forum that talks about magic has no problem discussing casual decks, deckbuilding and strategy. implying it's somehow invalid is stupid and a failing on YOUR part, and nothing more.

>> No.16928949

>>16928909
>>Putting restrictions on what people can and can't use just drives casual groups apart.

Does not compute. Please explain.

>> No.16928954

>>16928932
Well, if half the group only have stuff from Mirrodin Beseiged onwards, it still squews things.

>> No.16928982

>>16928949
>You buy something
>Told you ain't allowed to use it
>Why?
>"Because"

>> No.16928985

>>16928945

>you're an idiot. if someone asks how to improve their deck, you tell them how to improve their deck.
You can improve your deck by throwing out everything you have, and copying a netdeck. Done!

It's all subjective, and there's no means of telling precisely how much someone wants to improve their deck, how much they want their deck to change, or what would be fair to suggest when it's purely casual. Sorry you disagree with the precedent that has been set, reinforced, and carved into stone for the last 20+ years

>> No.16928993

>>16928982
Sorry, but that's the dumbest explanation you could've possibly given. Have you even read what the formats are?

You should probably start there.

>> No.16928996

>>16928954
>>Well, if half the group only have stuff from Mirrodin Beseiged onwards, it still squews things.

????????

Nothing in Scars block is on the restricted list.

The only new card face cards on the restricted list are: Ponder, Thirst for Knowledge, Trinisphere, Merchant Scroll, and Gifts Ungiven.

>> No.16929010

>>16928982

Well... maybe the guy buying 4 Tolarian Academies should've looked at the B&R list first.

>> No.16929013

>>16928993
Lets think about it:

Vintage/legacy - newer players are at a disadvantage, not having back catalogues of older stuff.
Modern/T2 - older players aren't allowed to use alot of their stuff, have to buy new stuff.

For someone who took a 6 year break from the game, I'm not wanting Standard, and my stuff is all just too old for Modern.

>> No.16929035

>>16928985
the exact same thing can be said of a tournament deck. unless they're already copying a netdeck, you can make the exact same argument about any deck conforming to a sanctioned format.

are you saying every rogue deck ever was immune to constructive criticism because it wasn't a netdeck? that's stupid.

>It's all subjective, and there's no means of telling precisely how much someone wants to improve their deck
that's my point. if you make suggestions, they can reply to those suggestions, letting you know why some are or are not acceptable to them. "throw away all your cards and make a netdeck" is just as inane an pointless in a competitive deck critique as in a casual discussion, you're making a strawman argument and ignoring the point that there are principles of deck construction and card evaluation that are not reliant on a metagame or established format to make them true. there are objectively good and bad ideas in the game.

>> No.16929046

>>16929013
>>Vintage/legacy - newer players are at a disadvantage, not having back catalogues of older stuff.

But at the same time, you're advocating no restrictions?

>> No.16929082

>>16929046
>But at the same time, you're advocating no restrictions?

Not really. Very few of my decks are 'illegal' for a format. If someone has a problem i'll switch decks.

My point was they can take their all Innistrad Human tribal deck, and it's not going to be very good against even a basic Vintage/Legacy deck.

>> No.16929083

>Vintage/legacy - newer players are at a disadvantage, not having back catalogues of older stuff.

You realize that this is actually MORE true in an unrestricted "casual" format, right?

>Modern/T2 - older players aren't allowed to use alot of their stuff, have to buy new stuff.

Except they can still easily build decks with what they have, game balance is improved drastically, and it's better for the newer players you were worried about in your previous statement?

Sorry, you just fear what's unfamiliar to you at best, or you enjoy using broken old cards that really should be banned in the first place at worst. In either case, your group is worse off for not using a format.

>> No.16929101

>>16929082
But it will be even worse against an unrestricted format deck.

Unless that deck falls within the restrictions of Vintage, at which point you should just say you're playing Vintage and get over yourself.

Are you really so damned afraid of change?

>> No.16929114

>>16929083
>>Modern/T2 - older players aren't allowed to use alot of their stuff, have to buy new stuff.

>Except they can still easily build decks with what they have

I stopped at Ravnica, and gave away most of my commons from Mirrodin-Ravnica. Modern isn't really something I can build to easily.

>> No.16929136

You've got players with new really cards and players with old cards (you).

Since they aren't going to be affected by any bannings other than Mental Misstep, why not just remove your Strip Mines and play legacy??

>> No.16929150

>>16928982
>You buy 4 Force of Wills
>Told you ain't allowed to use it
>Why?
>"Because we're using an official format designed to make the game balanced, and set completely unambiguous standards for how to make balanced decks that are actually interesting and fun to play against eachother rather than being a landslide in favour of whoever is willing to be cheesiest."

Yeah man, when you put it that way, fuck formats. I want the outcome of games to become stagnant and predictable based upon the decks we choose, since some will be obviously and drastically more powerful than others.

>> No.16929161

>>16929136
>Since they aren't going to be affected by any bannings other than Mental Misstep, why not just remove your Strip Mines and play legacy??

I'd be more than happy with this, but it seems some of them want to aim for Modern/Type 2.

>> No.16929177

>>16929161
And you don't have the balls to go out, drop $15 on a deck, then just play a split night of half vintage, half modern?

Sorry, but you're the shit that ruins casual groups by not listening to the players.

>> No.16929186

>>16929161
>>I'd be more than happy with this, but it seems some of them want to aim for Modern/Type 2.

Well... I can't blame you for hating on Type 2. It's very expensive to keep up... seems silly do Type 2 for casual.

Since the rest of your group wants to stick with a format... you should probably gun for legacy instead of decrying it as the end of the world.

>> No.16929191

>>16929177
>drop $15 on a deck

A competative deck, not-a-pile? For less than 20 bucks?

The Land of Make-Believe must be pretty awesome.

>> No.16929205

>>16929191
He could be talking about buying basic lands to proxy a deck.

Maybe.

Probably not though.

>> No.16929210

>>16929191
>>A competative deck, not-a-pile? For less than 20 bucks?

When Torment broke, UG Madness was just over $20 (for Coasts). And during Mirrodin, Affinity was just over $60 bucks ($40 for Ravagers, $20 for Glimmervoids).

Fuck man... what happened?

>> No.16929216

>>16929191
He's a shitty player advocating shitty decks. $15 is plenty.

>> No.16929231

If you're going to go cheap, you should just play peasant magic. Plenty of fun on the cheap.

>> No.16929240

>>16929216
Post a $15 deck please.

Not that i'm wanting to shoot it down - if it can be done then awesome.

But i'm skeptical.

>> No.16929288

>>16928179
shhhhh, only hexproof now.

>> No.16929346

>>16929240

18 Mountain
4 Furnace Scamp
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Stormblood Berserker
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Kiln Fiend
4 Price of Progress
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Rift Bolt
2 Searing Blaze

Well... semi-competitive anyway.

>> No.16929385

>>16929346
That's not a 15 dollar deck.

>> No.16929390

20 plains
4 Ballyrush Banneret
4 Revered Dead
4 Veteran Swordsmith
4 Veteran Armorsmith
4 Veteran Armorer
3 Enlistment Officer
2 Rhox Pikemaster
4 Palace Guard
4 Infantry Veteran
4 Kithkin Shielddare
4 Ballynock Cohort

There, fuck it. Just copied one of my peasant decks, because why not. Should be just about the range his friends are playing anyways, and this one weighs in at about $14.25

>> No.16929401

I just passed by to say
>>16929385
Wat. Buying a deck that way is just asking to be ripped off.

>> No.16929402

>>16929385

$1 for Furnace Scamps?

idontthinksotim.jpg

>> No.16929430

>>16929385
Hey, just gotta say, your prices are 100% fictitious.

>> No.16929435

>>16929402
It means one dollar for the playset, not one each.

Still too much for a junk common but that's still not a 15 dollar deck.

>> No.16929446

>>16929385

$36.72 for a Chain Lightning?

Shiiiiit. With a little patience, you can get a foil one (+plus plenty of other shit) for $20 on ebay by buying a Fire and Lightning deck.

>> No.16929448

>>16929390
>61 Cards.

I joke - thanks, i'll give it a spin.

>> No.16929471

>>16929446
>$36.72 for a Chain Lightning?

That's not for one, that's for a playset.

>> No.16929473

>>16929446

Nevermind... for a playset... still too much.

>> No.16929536

Ok, i'll see about making a Modern-Legal Kithkin deck.

You may have saved me from becoming even more of an arsehole towards my group.

>> No.16929559

Random question sort of related to MtG:
When an equipment states that equipped creature has hexproof, does the entire stack have hexproof or only the creature?

>> No.16929568

>>16929536

Since you played through Mirrodin, you could put together Affinity.

>> No.16929574

>>16929559

Just the critter.

>> No.16929578

>>16929568
No Ravagers.

Would cost me 15 quid each :(

>> No.16929619

>>16929578

When I was in England, I tried selling boxes for American prices (good deal over there), but the damn brits insisted on trying to rip me off.

Fuck em.

>> No.16929775

>implying masques was good for anything in any format except Masques/Invasion standard
mfw nobody ever remembers Counter Rebels.
One day I will rebuild you. Only better because its 10 years later and I'm playing casual now.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action