It's better with card tags. There are a few more options, but they are hidden as enchantments that turn into creatures, reanimation spells, creatures that can turn big under certain conditions (like Vampire Hounds), and such.Originally Posted by boxibrown
I've been testing the deck a bit these days, and so far the card I've been most happy with have been Glimpse of Nature and Plunge into Darkness, specially the last one, I think that card is busted and could pair well with Death's Shadow. I also might replace one Quirion Ranger for one land, too. In this meta, I'd rather play Tempting Wurm than the Wumpus or Iwamori.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
4 [U] Bayou
1 [TSP] Forest (1)
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
4 [ZEN] Verdant Catacombs
4 [AL] Elvish Spirit Guide
3 [OD] Wild Mongrel
4 [PLC] Kavu Predator
4 [NE] Skyshroud Cutter
2 [VI] Quirion Ranger
3 [RAV] Dark Confidant
2 [WWK] Death's Shadow
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [ON] False Cure
3 [U] Berserk
4 [MM] Invigorate
3 [NE] Reverent Silence
3 [MR] Chalice of the Void
3 [FD] Plunge into Darkness
2 [5E] Sylvan Library
Here's a quick list I made to test Death's Shadow instead of Tarmogoyf. Numbers aren't optimal, but in six games against the fishbowl it seemed pretty fast thanks to the extra digging/searching. I would raise the Death's Shadow's count and maybe take out the Wild Mongrel or the chalice to make room for the cards I left out. I haven't tested this list yet against real decks, it's only an idea. The other idea is to replace Death's Shadow by Vampire Hexmage and Sylvan Library by Dark Depths so that there's a "mono-black" kill condition against Iona that is searchable through Plunge.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
Instead of library how about mirri's guile that would interact better with bob and Still gets you the card you want
Mirri's Guile works as bad as Library with Reverent Silence, and it's always card disadvantage. Btw, I put library in there to LOSE life to make Death's Shadow relevant sooner, but as it's only a quick test it might not be the best card for the spot.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
i think the approach with deaths shadow is quite intresting but my problem with it is that it is way to risky IMO, specially against decks like zoo
but plunge into darkness was on my mind for quite a while now, you could definitely use it to search for the kill, which is awesome, it is somehow just like Ad Nauseum was for storm, spelling "sacrifice life, search for kill"
i was wondering why you dropped putrid leech, it would be a beater for early game that would outsize goyf
i got a serious problem with my deck right now, because i havent got enough money right now to purchase berserks, what would be budget solutions in your opinion
i have to say i like strength of lunacy, its a awesome pairing with mongrel, and it does not actually care for reverent silence because the moment you will be playing silence you will be going for the kill, so it would not matter
thanks
I haven't found anyone ever suggesting Scryb Ranger.
To me flying, pro-blue, flash and dodging chalice@1 seem like strong arguments compared to Quirion Ranger.
On the other hand, it costs 1 more mana, so you need acceleration in situations, where Quirion would have BEEN that acceleration.
If you don't have berserk, play Rites of Consumption of Swords to Plowshares. I saw a deck that used Plunge into darkness for Death's Shadow, and then Rites of Consumption for the kill. Rites of Consumption also can be played under Chalice, the problem it has is that it doesn't give trample to your creatures, so for example Elspeth will stop you dead. The other problem is that it doesn't stack as well as berserk, and that the latter was occasionally used as creature removal.
Scryb Ranger has been suggested in some other forum I visit, from which I took the idea of Plunge into Darkness. To use it, you definitely have to play more land and less accelerators. I haven't tested it because Quirion can kill on turn 2 and Scryb Ranger cannot, but that doesn't mean it's bad.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
oh i did not think of plunge into darkness for deaths shadow and than kill with rite of consumtion, quite funny :D
i was wondering what you would suggest if someone does not want to play a list with chalice main, and has no berserks, i would love to know about your testing with strength of lunacy
i think i will be testing deaths shadow now with plunge into darkness, seems quite funny and efficient to me, also i like the library in there for addictional carddraw
what about wild mongrel, are you still playing him over something else because of the possible 2nd turn kill? or are there other reasons as well?
This is my current test list. Only goldfishing so far, but looks promising:
Strength of Lunacy offers protection against swords and fills the 2 missing slots for pump spells that made the deck 0.7 turns faster back when I played Might of Old Krosa. Spoils of the Vault looks like a cheaper Plunge into Darkness that works well with my stompy approach. Having only 3 berserks and 3 chalice make them a bit risky tutor targets, but I'll keep those numbers for now. The "advantage" of Spoils of the Vault is that it can be played while manascrewed to find the missing land (and I seem to take between 0 and 7 points of damage on average if I name a card that still has 4 copies left in the library).4 [U] Bayou
1 [TSP] Forest (1)
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
4 [ZEN] Verdant Catacombs
4 [AL] Elvish Spirit Guide
4 [OD] Wild Mongrel
4 [PLC] Kavu Predator
4 [NE] Skyshroud Cutter
2 [VI] Quirion Ranger
3 [RAV] Dark Confidant
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [ON] False Cure
3 [U] Berserk
4 [MM] Invigorate
4 [NE] Reverent Silence
3 [MR] Chalice of the Void
3 [MR] Spoils of the Vault
2 [TO] Strength of Lunacy
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
whats the board look like on that last build. I like that one.
There's no sideboard yet for three reasons:
1. I'm currently using the sideboard for testing different cards and quick switch them, and so it currently has +80 cards
2. The current meta is not yet defined, and sb has to be adapted to it for it to be effective.
3. Spoils of the Vault is instant, puts the card directly in hand and is therefore broken, so it might be worth running sb cards that could be casted for free. Mindbreak Trap, Faerie Macabre, the fourth Chalice, Vines of Vastwood, Snuff Out, Reverent Silence, Refreshing Rain or whatever. It needs further tests.
Spoils of the Vault is also a devilsend against 43 lands because the best option against the deck was to use the False Cure path to win and that deck has no clock, so spoils has no disadvantages and can search for the missing pieces.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
I've casted Spoils of the Vault 36 times so far, and these are the numbers of life I lost in all those tests: 12, 13, 14, 4, 0, 4, 27, 12, 16, 1, 8, 6, 2, 2, 4, 21, 4, 8, 4, 6, 3, 7, 15, 14, 0, 17, 2, 0, 0, 2, 2, 7, 7, 1, 9, 12.
I consider losing more than 15 life a fail (in the "Ad-nausam" fashion), which means it works 36/4 = 90% of time, or 95% against decks that have a slow clock. It's indeed a risky card but very powerful. I've took out one Elvish Spirit Guide for one Swamp for the moment, so that I can do the play Fetch -> swamp -> spoils for bayou. Success means = I won that game.
Something I'm testing now is to crack a fetch to see which cards have most of the copies on the bottom of the deck (or all copies on top), because after shuffling is really unlikely they will remain at that position, and on average might do Spoils less risky.
The question now is if the increased speed and consistency is worth the occasional loss. Would have I lost the game anyways if I had drawn a Tarmogoyf instead of having spoils fizzle?
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
That's not how statistics work. Unless you're not randomizing, you have the same chance before and after shuffle of having copies on the bottom or top of deck.
Neither MWS nor live playing have good randomizers, and in the case you can't change the odds, acting as I said won't hurt you either. You are looking at it from a Mathematician's perspective, while I'm an Engineer.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
DrJones,
I believe it is a slippery slope to look at things in the manner you do regarding shuffling. If you are seeing a benefit from looking at where the cards you are interested are in relation to the top or bottom of the deck, before "Shuffling", you are cheating. Taking advantage of a not good randomizer would still be cheating. Computers cannot randomize anyway.
Peace
It's like people who mana weave between games or matches. There are only two outcomes: sufficient randomization anyway, in which case the mana weave was a complete waste of time. Or, non-sufficient randomization, in which case you're cheating.
Dr. Jones isn't talking about stacking your deck he is simply saying that you need to choose a card with spoils of the vault that has two main characteristics. 1) the card should complete your combo with the cards in your hand. 2) the card should be one you haven't seen in the game yet there for has a high probability of being flipped for a low life loss from Spoils of the vault. I can assure you that Dr. Jones was in no way advocating cheating or stacking your deck in any fashion
Then he is wasting his time (and 1 life) by fetching pre-Spoils to look at the cards in his library. Go back and re-read the two possible outcomes: 1) Wasting time 2) Cheating. If he's not cheating (I am not implying or thinking that he is) then he is wasting his time. The position of cards before the shuffle has 0 relation to their position post shuffle if the deck is being properly randomized.
CorpT,
You and I should join a club called "We can do math". Seriously, how many people like boxibrown are going to chime in and declare to the world that they have no idea how probability works.
-Peace
Actually, I'm pretty sure what boxibrown said is in accordance with the laws of probability. Basically, what he/she claims is that, if there are 4 copies of card X left in your deck, then you will lose less life on average from Spoils of the Vault than if there are 3 copies of card X left in your deck. Which is true.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote