Faced what I thought was Simic Flash, but the deck splashed black and was a bit different. Dropped Niv Mizzet versus the player, thought that was game, and I get hit with Ob Nixilis's Cruelty of all things. I was drawing great and still pulled it out, but it was a bit surprising.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
People are experimenting with black splashes in Simic Flash and Mono Blue (not so mono if you splash I guess) to better handle blue protection. Noxious Grasp handles a lot of problematic cards like Feather, Shifting Ceratops, or 3feri and swapping Djinns for Cutthroats lets you leave open mana more easily in the midgame so you can respond to stuff like people ramping into Cavalier of Thorns or Krasis.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
To be fair combo decks are generally unfair. Most of us use fair/unfair magic to reference how the deck interacts with the game on an xy fairunfair axis, like fair is play to curve with creatures and interaction, unfair can be anywhere from a one shot combo like storm or a weird interaction that runs parallel to how magic works like bridge from below, not to say I personally think something is unfair for you to play against me. I didn't catch of this was the context they were using terms in, but like scapeshift is absolutely an unfair deck in standard.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your basic point about the breadth of decks being complained about, but my understanding is that "fair magic" is a jargon term used to describe whether or not a deck conforms to conventional strategy and/or play patterns.
Not that it's also not a complaint but it wouldn't necessarily be, at least so far as I understand the term.
I didn't interpret Furbat's post as referencing the normal fair/unfair dichotomy in Magic, but the more general concept of fairness that includes "decks I don't like." That may have been uncharitable.
That said, I also think Standard Scapeshift is about the fairest combo deck I can imagine. It's a non-infinite, non-instant killing deck that doesn't really rely on any unintuitive interactions or operate on a substantially different axis than e.g. "ramp into X=2 Mass Manipulate, win." It still dumps a ridiculous amount of tokens on the board and is resilient, but it's way more "fair" than Splinter Twin or Saheeli Cat.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Play ashiokk. Scapeshift doesnt think ashiokk is a very fair card.
Ashiok is a good sideboard card but doesn't do a whole lot against any decks but Scapeshift and Dreadhorde. May as well just mainboard Unmoored ego at that point since Scapeshift can still punch out or imprison Ashiok.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
Board presence and alternate wincons are not requirements of fairness. UW Approach Control won via an alternate wincon and maintained little board presence, but it was definitely a fair deck. Urza Thopter Sword is a three part on-board combo but is definitely unfair. Fairness is more about whether your deck is constrained by the normal resource systems in Magic or whether it breaks them in some way, and somewhat about whether you care about what your opponent is doing or not. And again, in that sense Standard Scapeshift is generally about as fair as a combo deck can get except for the times you use Teferi to scapeshift on end step.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
Agreed on all counts, but I don't think OP was saying that the only strategies that are considered "unfair" are ones that don't care about board presence. Just that any strategy that DOESN'T care about board presence is likely an unfair one. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares type of thing
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
Agreed on all counts, but I don't think OP was saying that the only strategies that are considered "unfair" are ones that don't care about board presence. Just that any strategy that DOESN'T care about board presence is likely an unfair one. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares type of thing
But that's completely wrong. Board presence and fairness are basically independent.
And in the end it's all just shorthand jargon we use in broad strokes. There's very little to be gained from completely categorizing everything to those limits or arguing personal limits on the definition. If we're using it to help facilitate communication then sure
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
Agreed on all counts, but I don't think OP was saying that the only strategies that are considered "unfair" are ones that don't care about board presence. Just that any strategy that DOESN'T care about board presence is likely an unfair one. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares type of thing
But that's completely wrong. Board presence and fairness are basically independent.
I'm debating whether that's true. The only counterexample I can think of is draw-go control (as you mentioned) but I'd argue that draw-go decks care very much about board presence, just not about establishing their OWN board presence. They have a lot of tools to ensure that they don't fall behind on board.
Any deck that lets an opponent establish a huge board without doing anything to manage it is probably setting up to kill you with a flying 20/20 or fifteen copies of Tendrils of Agony or whatever.
But maybe I'm just arguing to argue. I don't really have a dog in this fight! (I still like my definition of "unfair" better anyway.)
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
Agreed on all counts, but I don't think OP was saying that the only strategies that are considered "unfair" are ones that don't care about board presence. Just that any strategy that DOESN'T care about board presence is likely an unfair one. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares type of thing
But that's completely wrong. Board presence and fairness are basically independent.
I'm debating whether that's true. The only counterexample I can think of is draw-go control (as you mentioned) but I'd argue that draw-go decks care very much about board presence, just not about establishing their OWN board presence. They have a lot of tools to ensure that they don't fall behind on board.
Any deck that lets an opponent establish a huge board without doing anything to manage it is probably setting up to kill you with a flying 20/20 or fifteen copies of Tendrils of Agony or whatever.
But maybe I'm just arguing to argue. I don't really have a dog in this fight! (I still like my definition of "unfair" better anyway.)
Only caring about the opponent's board presence isn't "maintaining a board presence", though. And most unfair decks also care about maintaining a board presence, at least outside of Legacy; Hogaak, Phoenix, Dredge (mostly), KCI, Urza Thopsword, Saheeli cat, Aetherflux Storm, etc. are all very board based decks whether they are a pure combo or just an unfair aggro deck. (Ok, Saheeli Cat only needs a single Walker to survive, it was dumb). It's more just that outside of Legacy, not maintaining a board presence is not actually feasible and most unfairness is about getting that board presence at a deep discount. The number of fair and unfair decks that don't want a board presence is very small indeed.
I ate an engineer
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
It feels like a lot of people play magic while wanting it to a be a different game than it is while continuing to play magic.
Eh magic is a broad enough game to both contain all those different types of play and appeal to different types of players. I personally hate playing against legacy moon decks and modern Tron decks but I mostly just accept their existence though I maintain that casting a t1 chalice or blood moon is just coming to a legacy tournament and telling everyone they don't get to play the legacy format and it's a weird flex, but ok
I added 3 copies of tales End to my simic flash deck. It's so much fun countering all sorts of bullshit. Go ahead and remove 7 counter from chandra to "win the game", i couldn't care less. It's also good to just have some additional ways to counter t3feri.
There's still a ton of rough matchups, but overall I'm having more fun with simic flash than I have with any other deck in a while. It's the best of both worlds, counters and creatures.
Edit: I should clarify I'm playing Bo1. I wish I had the time to play Bo3, but i often play while at work and might have to bail on a match at anytime. This means I often have to make sure the bo1 version can handle lots of different archetypes.
I added 3 copies of tales End to my simic flash deck. It's so much fun countering all sorts of bullshit. Go ahead and remove 7 counter from chandra to "win the game", i couldn't care less. It's also good to just have some additional ways to counter t3feri.
There's still a ton of rough matchups, but overall I'm having more fun with simic flash than I have with any other deck in a while. It's the best of both worlds, counters and creatures.
Edit: I should clarify I'm playing Bo1. I wish I had the time to play Bo3, but i often play while at work and might have to bail on a match at anytime. This means I often have to make sure the bo1 version can handle lots of different archetypes.
I added 3 copies of tales End to my simic flash deck. It's so much fun countering all sorts of bullshit. Go ahead and remove 7 counter from chandra to "win the game", i couldn't care less. It's also good to just have some additional ways to counter t3feri.
There's still a ton of rough matchups, but overall I'm having more fun with simic flash than I have with any other deck in a while. It's the best of both worlds, counters and creatures.
Edit: I should clarify I'm playing Bo1. I wish I had the time to play Bo3, but i often play while at work and might have to bail on a match at anytime. This means I often have to make sure the bo1 version can handle lots of different archetypes.
What do you cut for the Tales End?
I think I cut one each of syncopate, scatter, and negate.
I did try replacing them with rewinds, but I've been facing enough feather decks that I like to keep them in. the exile effect is not insignificant against reanimators, as well.
Edit, also you have to have way to stop teferi on your turn two.
Although I was on the draw and my opponent went t1 elf, t2 teferi and welp. that was all she wrote.
i thought they had fixed the skip turn before you can respond to things bug. turns out they just posted about fixing it and i discovered that in the always sad way
Not very timely of me but here's my list: (Stomping Ground got covered but there's 4)
I don't think it can be updated for Standard because of the loss of Crucible but I think it could be improved for the new Mythic format (which I will be playing over Standard). It also has the potential to completely lock out the current Scapeshift deck. Their mana base is greedier than the Esper decks I made this for originally. With turn 2 or 3 Crucible and a Field of Ruin you can just basically end the game on 3 or 4. It's also pretty fun to go turn 3 Nissa into turn 4 Liliana.
Posts
One time I happened to have a Lightning Strike on hand, at least!
Gotta love those gainlands!
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
To be fair combo decks are generally unfair. Most of us use fair/unfair magic to reference how the deck interacts with the game on an xy fairunfair axis, like fair is play to curve with creatures and interaction, unfair can be anywhere from a one shot combo like storm or a weird interaction that runs parallel to how magic works like bridge from below, not to say I personally think something is unfair for you to play against me. I didn't catch of this was the context they were using terms in, but like scapeshift is absolutely an unfair deck in standard.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your basic point about the breadth of decks being complained about, but my understanding is that "fair magic" is a jargon term used to describe whether or not a deck conforms to conventional strategy and/or play patterns.
Not that it's also not a complaint but it wouldn't necessarily be, at least so far as I understand the term.
That said, I also think Standard Scapeshift is about the fairest combo deck I can imagine. It's a non-infinite, non-instant killing deck that doesn't really rely on any unintuitive interactions or operate on a substantially different axis than e.g. "ramp into X=2 Mass Manipulate, win." It still dumps a ridiculous amount of tokens on the board and is resilient, but it's way more "fair" than Splinter Twin or Saheeli Cat.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
Ashiok is a good sideboard card but doesn't do a whole lot against any decks but Scapeshift and Dreadhorde. May as well just mainboard Unmoored ego at that point since Scapeshift can still punch out or imprison Ashiok.
Board presence and alternate wincons are not requirements of fairness. UW Approach Control won via an alternate wincon and maintained little board presence, but it was definitely a fair deck. Urza Thopter Sword is a three part on-board combo but is definitely unfair. Fairness is more about whether your deck is constrained by the normal resource systems in Magic or whether it breaks them in some way, and somewhat about whether you care about what your opponent is doing or not. And again, in that sense Standard Scapeshift is generally about as fair as a combo deck can get except for the times you use Teferi to scapeshift on end step.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
Agreed on all counts, but I don't think OP was saying that the only strategies that are considered "unfair" are ones that don't care about board presence. Just that any strategy that DOESN'T care about board presence is likely an unfair one. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares type of thing
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
But that's completely wrong. Board presence and fairness are basically independent.
I'm debating whether that's true. The only counterexample I can think of is draw-go control (as you mentioned) but I'd argue that draw-go decks care very much about board presence, just not about establishing their OWN board presence. They have a lot of tools to ensure that they don't fall behind on board.
Any deck that lets an opponent establish a huge board without doing anything to manage it is probably setting up to kill you with a flying 20/20 or fifteen copies of Tendrils of Agony or whatever.
But maybe I'm just arguing to argue. I don't really have a dog in this fight! (I still like my definition of "unfair" better anyway.)
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
Only caring about the opponent's board presence isn't "maintaining a board presence", though. And most unfair decks also care about maintaining a board presence, at least outside of Legacy; Hogaak, Phoenix, Dredge (mostly), KCI, Urza Thopsword, Saheeli cat, Aetherflux Storm, etc. are all very board based decks whether they are a pure combo or just an unfair aggro deck. (Ok, Saheeli Cat only needs a single Walker to survive, it was dumb). It's more just that outside of Legacy, not maintaining a board presence is not actually feasible and most unfairness is about getting that board presence at a deep discount. The number of fair and unfair decks that don't want a board presence is very small indeed.
Losing is unfair and unfun.
I have cracked the code!
My Rashmi "do a ton of things then lose" deck says otherwise! (It actually wins pretty often but solely on craterhoofing out)
There's still a ton of rough matchups, but overall I'm having more fun with simic flash than I have with any other deck in a while. It's the best of both worlds, counters and creatures.
Edit: I should clarify I'm playing Bo1. I wish I had the time to play Bo3, but i often play while at work and might have to bail on a match at anytime. This means I often have to make sure the bo1 version can handle lots of different archetypes.
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
What do you cut for the Tales End?
I think I cut one each of syncopate, scatter, and negate.
5 Forest (RIX) 196
4 Brineborn Cutthroat (M20) 50
4 Merfolk Trickster (DAR) 56
4 Frilled Mystic (RNA) 174
8 Island (RIX) 193
4 Nightpack Ambusher (M20) 185
2 Sinister Sabotage (GRN) 54
3 Unsummon (M20) 78
3 Essence Scatter (M19) 54
2 Negate (RIX) 44
2 Opt (XLN) 65
4 Breeding Pool (RNA) 246
4 Hinterland Harbor (DAR) 240
3 Temple of Mystery (M20) 255
2 Syncopate (DAR) 67
3 Tale's End (M20) 77
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
That's pretty interesting. I may play around with that. Plus could just try straight up replacing syncopates with it for rotation.
Yea I was thinking I would rather just try replacing all them right now and see how it is because I like my other counters too much.
Edit, also you have to have way to stop teferi on your turn two.
Although I was on the draw and my opponent went t1 elf, t2 teferi and welp. that was all she wrote.
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
Not because its a great card, but because its a hilarious one.
Getting a nexus of fate with narset's reversal is a real deer in headlights situation for the nexus player. It's hilarious.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
I think the best Ive gotten is that sac to reanimate spell
Not very timely of me but here's my list: (Stomping Ground got covered but there's 4)
I don't think it can be updated for Standard because of the loss of Crucible but I think it could be improved for the new Mythic format (which I will be playing over Standard). It also has the potential to completely lock out the current Scapeshift deck. Their mana base is greedier than the Esper decks I made this for originally. With turn 2 or 3 Crucible and a Field of Ruin you can just basically end the game on 3 or 4. It's also pretty fun to go turn 3 Nissa into turn 4 Liliana.
All my decks in Eternal (and previously, Hearthstone) are named FUCK YOU.
Because its true.