The Best and Worst of Fate Reforged

[xTwinkiesx]

RE: [mtg_card=Dark Deal]. People are onto something with the [mtg_card=Waste Not] and [mtg_card=Liliana's Caress] business. I think this card could be great if you combine one or both of those with [mtg_card=Fascination], too.

RE: [mtg_card=Daghatar the Adamant]. First thing I thought of was [mtg_card=Hardened Scales]. If you have more than one of those out on the battlefield, creatures could get super strong super fast.

RE: [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider]. This is what I'm really interested in, and I need someone to clarify the rules for me on this one. What if you have two of these, and they each make a copy of the other. Would that put effectively let you copy two more attacking creatures, making an infinite combo? It sounds so simple and easy that I feel like Wizards wouldn't overlook something like this, but please. Enlighten me.

 

[Slycne]

RE: [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider]. This is what I'm really interested in, and I need someone to clarify the rules for me on this one. What if you have two of these, and they each make a copy of the other. Would that put effectively let you copy two more attacking creatures, making an infinite combo? It sounds so simple and easy that I feel like Wizards wouldn't overlook something like this, but please. Enlighten me.

Sadly it doesn't work, [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider]'s ability triggers when it's declared as an attacker. When something is put into the battlefield "tapped and attacking" it's skipping the declare attackers step. So two [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider], copying each other would only get you two [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider] and two [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider] tokens attacking since the tokens don't trigger to make additional tokens.

 

[mrverbal]

RE: [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider]. This is what I'm really interested in, and I need someone to clarify the rules for me on this one. What if you have two of these, and they each make a copy of the other. Would that put effectively let you copy two more attacking creatures, making an infinite combo? It sounds so simple and easy that I feel like Wizards wouldn't overlook something like this, but please. Enlighten me.

Sadly it doesn't work, [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider]'s ability triggers when it's declared as an attacker. When something is put into the battlefield "tapped and attacking" it's skipping the declare attackers step. So two [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider], copying each other would only get you two [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider] and two [mtg_card=Flamerush Rider] tokens attacking since the tokens don't trigger to make additional tokens.

This is exactly correct. It's also one of the two reasons why copying one of the rare dragons is a bad idea; it doesn't count as an attacking dragon and trigger those for exactly that rule.

(It's also a bad idea because the dragons are, well, legendary and so one of them dies immediately. I recommend the token )

 

[Terratina.]

I did terribly at my prerelease, so many misplays but at least I pulled some dece rares. Playing with manifest is fun but sometimes I needed the mana instead of getting a 2/2 that can never be turned up. Oh well.

Re Dark Deal: [mtg_card=Whelming Wave] is a thing too.

RE: [mtg_card=Dark Deal]. People are onto something with the [mtg_card=Waste Not] and [mtg_card=Liliana's Caress] business. I think this card could be great if you combine one or both of those with [mtg_card=Fascination], too.

Stop it, you're tempting to do horrible things. I love me some [mtg_card=Waste Not] and ridiculous combos are my jam.

 

[tstorm823]

Sorry, [mtg_card=Taigam's Scheming] is terrible. Setting up your draw steps is not worth a card if it's not replacing itself. You're down a resource now and that's not something to be taken lightly. The only decks I think it's somewhat passable in are combo where you care less about the raw resources since your 2-3 card combo will win the game by itself.

Is Seething Song terrible because it puts you down a card? (Hint: It's banned in modern.) Because in the context of a delve deck, Taigam's Scheming nets twice as much mana as seething song (unless you feel like setting the top of your deck.)

Is entomb terrible because it puts you down a card? It isn't, because sometimes dropping cards in your graveyard is even better than drawing them. Taigam's Scheming does that.

I'm not saying the card's amazing, but you're looking at it like it's a draw spell that doesn't draw, and it isn't that. It's a different utility than raw card advantage, although based on your opinion of Dark Deal, that seems to be the only thing you care about.

 

[Slycne]

Is Seething Song terrible because it puts you down a card? (Hint: It's banned in modern.) Because in the context of a delve deck, Taigam's Scheming nets twice as much mana as seething song (unless you feel like setting the top of your deck.)

Is entomb terrible because it puts you down a card? It isn't, because sometimes dropping cards in your graveyard is even better than drawing them. Taigam's Scheming does that.

I'm not saying the card's amazing, but you're looking at it like it's a draw spell that doesn't draw, and it isn't that. It's a different utility than raw card advantage, although based on your opinion of Dark Deal, that seems to be the only thing you care about.

Sure, but those cards fall in to exactly what I said about Taigam's Scheming. Seething Song isn't banned because is let's you ramp out something quickly and fire off a bunch of Ball Lightnings. It's banned because it makes the Modern Storm combo too consistent. In the same way you wouldn't want to play Taigam's Scheming just for delve, there are better cards for dumping things into your graveyard.

One of the great aspects of Magic is that any card can be good in the right circumstances, I just don't think those circumstances exist nearly enough for Taigam's Scheming.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure, but those cards fall in to exactly what I said about Taigam's Scheming. Seething Song isn't banned because is let's you ramp out something quickly and fire off a bunch of Ball Lightnings. It's banned because it makes the Modern Storm combo too consistent. In the same way you wouldn't want to play Taigam's Scheming just for delve, there are better cards for dumping things into your graveyard.

One of the great aspects of Magic is that any card can be good in the right circumstances, I just don't think those circumstances exist nearly enough for Taigam's Scheming.

In a Khans Khans Fate Reforged draft, I'm not sure there is anything better at dumping cards in graveyard. I'm ok spending turn two digging to the cards that actually win the game while simultaneously churning out a turn 3 5/5 zombie fish. I spent my prerelease using rakshasa's secrets to churn out my zombie fish and it worked out surprisingly well.

I think terrible is the wrong way to describe a card with definite value in limited, the format that dictates the most design choices.

 

[Slycne]

In a Khans Khans Fate Reforged draft, I'm not sure there is anything better at dumping cards in graveyard. I'm ok spending turn two digging to the cards that actually win the game while simultaneously churning out a turn 3 5/5 zombie fish. I spent my prerelease using rakshasa's secrets to churn out my zombie fish and it worked out surprisingly well.

I think terrible is the wrong way to describe a card with definite value in limited, the format that dictates the most design choices.

Honestly, I think it's even less playable in limited. Heh, what's worse than terrible?

Using a card to Dark Ritual some expensive, but not overpowering, spells and to maybe set up the top of your deck a little - which awkwardly cuts into the cards ability to be a delve enabler - just isn't worth a full card and it's super punitive in a grindy limited format like Khans. You're now down that resource against your opponent, that's one less removal spell, one less creature, etc. That's just the advantage that allows your opponent to lean on you and win eventually.

The value of something like Hooting Mandrills isn't that you can power it out on Turn 3, it's around Turn 6-10 when you can make a strong play of say flipping over a morph and putting a nice 4/4 on the board. Even if my deck was full of Hooting Mandrills, Treasure Cruise, and such, I think Scout the Borders and Rakshasa's Secrets are still much better enablers.

 

[tstorm823]

Honestly, I think it's even less playable in limited. Heh, what's worse than terrible?

Using a card to Dark Ritual some expensive, but not overpowering, spells and to maybe set up the top of your deck a little - which awkwardly cuts into the cards ability to be a delve enabler - just isn't worth a full card and it's super punitive in a grindy limited format like Khans. You're now down that resource against your opponent, that's one less removal spell, one less creature, etc. That's just the advantage that allows your opponent to lean on you and win eventually.

The value of something like Hooting Mandrills isn't that you can power it out on Turn 3, it's around Turn 6-10 when you can make a strong play of say flipping over a morph and putting a nice 4/4 on the board. Even if my deck was full of Hooting Mandrills, Treasure Cruise, and such, I think Scout the Borders and Rakshasa's Secrets are still much better enablers.

You're really doubling down on this, but your opinion is making less sense. You think the grindyness of the format makes card selection and delve enabling bad, but you're the one who recommended draft picking a 4/1 that dies to literally everything? The grindier the format, the less important that one card loss is. A limited deck can't run smoothly out the gate without drawing a dead land card later. You eliminate a single dead draw, the card has payed itself forward. If it was a fast format, the loss in pace would be a strong arguement against, but it isn't.

 

[Slycne]

You're really doubling down on this.

Heh, we're Magic players. We spend more time arguing about cards than playing the game or deck building. Card sorting might be a close second.

but your opinion is making less sense. You think the grindyness of the format makes card selection and delve enabling bad, but you're the one who recommended draft picking a 4/1 that dies to literally everything? The grindier the format, the less important that one card loss is. A limited deck can't run smoothly out the gate without drawing a dead land card later. You eliminate a single dead draw, the card has payed itself forward. If it was a fast format, the loss in pace would be a strong arguement against, but it isn't.

While I think you're absolutely correct that in a faster format you can't afford to take a turn off like that. For example, you just couldn't cast it in Gatecrash or Zenidkar without getting run over. But I think the effects of a dead card as related to the length of the game is more of a bell curve than a regression. In a long grindy format like say M14 or Khans, resources exchanges start to stack up, and one side gets to start leaning on their advantage eventually tipping the match in their favor. I also don't agree that simply clearing one land of your deck in the late game means you've re-cooped on Taigam's Scheming. You still had to take off a turn, or part of a turn off, doing nothing to the board itself. There's just so many hoops and conditions that need to line up for Taigam's Scheming to even begin to be argued as being "worth" a card.

 

[mrverbal]

Honestly, I think it's even less playable in limited. Heh, what's worse than terrible?

Using a card to Dark Ritual some expensive, but not overpowering, spells and to maybe set up the top of your deck a little - which awkwardly cuts into the cards ability to be a delve enabler - just isn't worth a full card and it's super punitive in a grindy limited format like Khans. You're now down that resource against your opponent, that's one less removal spell, one less creature, etc. That's just the advantage that allows your opponent to lean on you and win eventually.

The value of something like Hooting Mandrills isn't that you can power it out on Turn 3, it's around Turn 6-10 when you can make a strong play of say flipping over a morph and putting a nice 4/4 on the board. Even if my deck was full of Hooting Mandrills, Treasure Cruise, and such, I think Scout the Borders and Rakshasa's Secrets are still much better enablers.

You're really doubling down on this, but your opinion is making less sense. You think the grindyness of the format makes card selection and delve enabling bad, but you're the one who recommended draft picking a 4/1 that dies to literally everything? The grindier the format, the less important that one card loss is. A limited deck can't run smoothly out the gate without drawing a dead land card later. You eliminate a single dead draw, the card has payed itself forward. If it was a fast format, the loss in pace would be a strong arguement against, but it isn't.

You're using some serious best-case thinking.

Sure, there may be the odd game where you cast it turn two, your opponent is durdling, and you cast some giant delve monster on turn 3. (although the number of games where 3 of the top 5 cards are things you want to dump in your graveyard on turn two should be low, or you should build better decks).

But there are also going to be games where your opponent went first, cast a 2 drop and a 3 drop, and suddenly you're at 14, and in a position where if they have any removal for your 5/5 you are pretty much stone dead.

But neither of those is important, really. There are two things that are important.

The first is that your notion that it is "replacing" itself if mill out an unwanted land is false; you're improving card quality, potentially, but you aren't getting card advantage, and you are losing tempo. Neither of these are things you want to be doing. The cards in your deck are all blanks until you draw them. It is like the thing bad players do when they play a single mill spell; the 4 cards they mill are equally likely to have been any four cards in your deck, and unless you lose the game to it it is totally irrelevant.

But secondly, and much more importantly, is that EVEN IF I were to accept the premise that scheming is a fine turn 2 play (which I don't, and it isn't), it is a god awful turn 6 play, and a mind-blowingly bad turn 10 play.

You want to keep the number of cards that turn into absolute bricks as the game goes long as low as possible. You already have to play about 17 of them. Why would you play more? (This is, by the way, why 99% of every time you try to play a vanilla or french vanilla 1 mana 1/1 you should slap yourself in the face until you snap out of it)

 

[tstorm823]

The first is that your notion that it is "replacing" itself if mill out an unwanted land is false; you're improving card quality, potentially, but you aren't getting card advantage, and you are losing tempo. Neither of these are things you want to be doing. The cards in your deck are all blanks until you draw them. It is like the thing bad players do when they play a single mill spell; the 4 cards they mill are equally likely to have been any four cards in your deck, and unless you lose the game to it it is totally irrelevant.

I'm sorry to get in the way of your sense of superiority, but it's nothing like random milling, because you're looking and choosing. The cards aren't blank until you draw them if the card lets you look and choose. It's not comparable to milling your opponent, it's comparable to fate sealing them.

But secondly, and much more importantly, is that EVEN IF I were to accept the premise that scheming is a fine turn 2 play (which I don't, and it isn't), it is a god awful turn 6 play, and a mind-blowingly bad turn 10 play.

You know what else is an awful turn 10 play? Farseek. Farseek is a vomitously bad late game topdeck compared to Taigam's Scheming. But you play it anyway because a deck with no early game is certified crap.

 

[mrverbal]

The first is that your notion that it is "replacing" itself if mill out an unwanted land is false; you're improving card quality, potentially, but you aren't getting card advantage, and you are losing tempo. Neither of these are things you want to be doing. The cards in your deck are all blanks until you draw them. It is like the thing bad players do when they play a single mill spell; the 4 cards they mill are equally likely to have been any four cards in your deck, and unless you lose the game to it it is totally irrelevant.

I'm sorry to get in the way of your sense of superiority, but it's nothing like random milling, because you're looking and choosing. The cards aren't blank until you draw them if the card lets you look and choose. It's not comparable to milling your opponent, it's comparable to fate sealing them.

But secondly, and much more importantly, is that EVEN IF I were to accept the premise that scheming is a fine turn 2 play (which I don't, and it isn't), it is a god awful turn 6 play, and a mind-blowingly bad turn 10 play.

You know what else is an awful turn 10 play? Farseek. Farseek is a vomitously bad late game topdeck compared to Taigam's Scheming. But you play it anyway because a deck with no early game is certified crap.

Just so we're clear, farseek is *also* bad in a large percentage of limited decks. However, unlike scheming, it gives you a significant advantage; you can start playing your 4 drops on turn 3, which can be big game in some formats, and it colour fixes you.

So farseek gains you a potentially large tempo advantage if you play it early.

Your limited decks shoud be creatures, things which kill creatures, things that give you +CA or +tempo, and usually nothing else. Scheming costs you a card, costs you tempo*, and doesn't interact with the board at all. It's a bad card that will very occasionally be your 23rd card but you should never be happy to play.

* because you know what is a much better play on both turn 2 and turn 10? a bear of any kind.

 

[tstorm823]

Just so we're clear, farseek is *also* bad in a large percentage of limited decks. However, unlike scheming, it gives you a significant advantage; you can start playing your 4 drops on turn 3, which can be big game in some formats, and it colour fixes you.

So farseek gains you a potentially large tempo advantage if you play it early.

Your limited decks shoud be creatures, things which kill creatures, things that give you +CA or +tempo, and usually nothing else. Scheming costs you a card, costs you tempo*, and doesn't interact with the board at all. It's a bad card that will very occasionally be your 23rd card but you should never be happy to play.

* because you know what is a much better play on both turn 2 and turn 10? a bear of any kind.

It plays with delve! Farseek fixes color and ramps mana, scheming sets the top of your deck and feeds delve. Farseek in its limited could get you a turn 3 loxodon hierarch. Taigam's scheming in its limited can get you a turn 3 necropolis fiend. And you really think a bear on turn 10 is always better than digging for something with more impact than a single chump block?

 

[mrverbal]

In a large number of games, turn 10 bear is better than turn 10 skip my turn, scry a few times.

If the game is a race, the bear is better - I can't take the turn off to do nothing, and the bear can change the race.

If the board is empty, scheming can cost you the game unless your opponent bricks twice.

If there is a large board stall, *maybe* scheming helps, but the extra body can equally give you the wrap around.