1576609:I love the way working out how many quests you
need to have one in your opener at 85% confidence isn't good enough.
But somehow just using the numbers other decks have used in the past is
fine. Even when you are using number of one drops rather than quests.
Even if this was a good idea surely you should take the number of
quests those decks ran rather than taking their one drops and changing
it to quests. Not that you are even taking one drops in any sensible
way, picking what to count so you get to the number you like.
Looking over this the number of things you are getting wrong is almost
unreal.
I didn't say that 85% wasn't good enough. I said that if the OP wanted
to draw a card decently enough, about 9 was enough. Other decks have
used that number, such as number of 1 drops in rush decks that need to
play them on turn 1. It isn't about picking and choosing which cards
count or not, its about which cards are the kinds you actually want to
see and use on turn 1 since the OP was asking about opening hands, not
on how many quests do people usually run.
1576609:Well if you define one drops as being whatever
you feel like counting so your numbers look right then clearly it is
pretty hard for you to fail.
How exactly is swfit disipline a one drop when stormshock isn't?
It isn't just any card, it is cards that you actually want to be
casting on turn 1. There is a simple reason as to why I didn't include
Stormshock in my list. I didn't see the Stormshock. My bad.
1576609:Well if you define one drops as being whatever
you feel like counting so your numbers look right then clearly it is
pretty hard for you to fail.
How exactly is swfit disipline a one drop when stormshock isn't?
I define an opening hand one drop as the one drop you play on your
first
turn. Hence why it is relevant to have in your opening hand. Just
because something costs one mana does not mean that its meant to be
cast on turn 1. Tewa Wildmane for example. Just because she costs 6
resources does not mean you have to cast her on turn 6.
--------------------------------------------
"Eye of Kilrogg, Invocation ... nobody plays janky things like that, right? Or you just always play first when testing?"
Your opponents play Eye of Kilrogg on turn one when they only have 1
resource? The same with invocation? Tell your opponents that they're
cheating. You need at least two resources to play those cards.
Oh wait! That's right. Fizzle is good for things past turn one while the other cards are great for turn one itself. Which is what I was saying.
"On Turn 5 when Myriam is active? Nobody does THAT, am I right?
You
do know if you play here Turn 1, all you can do is name the resource
you played, and if you ever complete it she becomes useless unless you
draw another quest with the same name or it happened to have one of the
2 locations?
But if I play it T1, I can put the opposing hero on a 25-31 turn clock, right?"
Actually, playing it in turn one means that on turn two you can play
whatever you want and have fizzle/heroflip mana up on their turn. So
you can play your Water Elemental and not have to worry about it dying
because the resource untaps on your opponents turn allowing you to keep
the pet protected. You can also use her to complete quests and draw a
card early, if that was needed. And if you draw her late, you can use her with your late
game cards such as Myriam.
Is it also possible for you to not play her turn one and isntead abuse
Glouse? Yes. That's a player choice. Deciding that completing quests
is more important than keeping a resource up to counter spells.
"Unless
I play her and name the resource that I used to play her, which means
unless they use instant ally kill on her, she can be resource neutral
the turn she comes out, and then keep my fizzle/taste threat going for
as long as she's alive."
She also does the whole keeping a resource up trick for interrupts as
early as turn 1. You don't have to wait for turn 5-6 to do that.
vichiers:(typical build from the old school
days was always 10 Forest, 4 Land Grant btw ... can you guess why?)
1406143:
you who made the statement that they simply ran 4 land grants and 10
forests, which wasn't true.
"I
bolded the differences between what I said (first quote) and what you
claim I said (second quote). I know you have reading comprehension
difficulties, but do try to keep up."
Oh I get it, when you tried to talk about 9land stompy decks you were
thinking about 9land stompy decks that no one played anymore. Gotcha.
Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, I thought you were trying to
be part of the discussion and not just stating irrelevant statements.
My bad, label them next time to promote clarity.
"Blah blah
blah, how exactly is the current playablility relevant to the fact that
every significantly successful version of green stompy in the history
of Magic ran at least 13 green mana sources?
But I'm sure there were a bunch of brilliant decks posted on now defunct forums that would prove this wrong."
The playability comment is important because none of the type one
tournaments in the past few years have had enviroments that are
suitable for playing a type 1 stompy deck and so I am not inclined to
depend upon any of the more recent stompy decklists since I am not
familiar with them. Decks change according to the metagame. I'm
simply saying that it doesn't need 13 green mana sources. I've tested
it, others have tested it. If you don't believe me, then lets agree to
disagree.
1189990:
The English language is such a tricky thing. If only he had said "How many quests do I need in a 60 card deck to be sure of having one my opening hand" (which was clearly his intent). Oh well.
That's what I've been saying.
If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
--Zoe, Firefly