|
Play tested against MBI running 3 Lilianas, I played U/W Control. She's okay. I don't think she suddenly makes MBI amazing. More often than not, she doesn't resolve turns 3-6 and if she does, she's O-Ring-ed or Disperesed on the spot, though O-Ring kills your tempo and you'll probably lose to Lashwrithe on the next turn >_> Lashwrithe is seriously this whole deck.
When she does stick, her discard usually snagged my Think Twice or a Midnight Haunting. I think the worst case scenario I ran into all day was Specter hit at 4 and Liliana pitch, bringing me to 1 card in hand. I think she's much better against U/W Aggro decks than U/W Control Decks, at least in my opinion. She's really no different from any other planeswalker in that they can't stick or you'll lose...because they're planeswalkers. Turn 2 Distress is pretty nice though.
I really don't see MBI's plan against RDW. It's not a pretty matchup: Spikeshot Elder, Shrine, Arc Trail, Koth and Hero? I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks this is a favorable matchup. What this deck needs is Duress, man.
The deck is pretty prevalant at my store, so UB control has taken to boarding in Dismembers and Curse of Death's Hold(I know, right?) RDW is playing Burn the Impure, 4 Shrines and Dismember and WolfRunRamp is fine because it's good. And I've been playing Midnight Haunting - yeah...So take what I say with a grain of salt, maybe the store is just too ready for the deck.
Anyways, that concludes this bads review of MonoBlackInfect.
EDIT: I should point out that MBI definitely has a hand up on Kessig Wolf Run Ramp decks. I just think that WolfRunRamp is more sound.
|
I pretty much agree with your analysis. The only reason it is monoblack at all is because of lashwrithe.
MBI's plan against RDW is play a crusader and pray they don't have something to take it out. It really just boils down to whether they have the appropriate sideboard or not.
|
On October 26 2011 01:58 dignity wrote:
I pretty much agree with your analysis. The only reason it is monoblack at all is because of lashwrithe.
MBI's plan against RDW is play a crusader and pray they don't have something to take it out. It really just boils down to whether they have the appropriate sideboard or not.
More like play spellskite post-board and hope they'll spend two cards removing it, one of which is going to be aimed at your Lashwrithe or Inkmoth anyways.
|
On October 26 2011 02:23 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 01:58 dignity wrote:
I pretty much agree with your analysis. The only reason it is monoblack at all is because of lashwrithe.
MBI's plan against RDW is play a crusader and pray they don't have something to take it out. It really just boils down to whether they have the appropriate sideboard or not. More like play spellskite post-board and hope they'll spend two cards removing it, one of which is going to be aimed at your Lashwrithe or Inkmoth anyways.
I dunno, Spellskite works well but against a Spikeshot Elder and Arc Trail, the interaction tends to be less effective.
|
On October 26 2011 08:56 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 02:23 Judicator wrote:On October 26 2011 01:58 dignity wrote:
I pretty much agree with your analysis. The only reason it is monoblack at all is because of lashwrithe.
MBI's plan against RDW is play a crusader and pray they don't have something to take it out. It really just boils down to whether they have the appropriate sideboard or not. More like play spellskite post-board and hope they'll spend two cards removing it, one of which is going to be aimed at your Lashwrithe or Inkmoth anyways. I dunno, Spellskite works well but against a Spikeshot Elder and Arc Trail, the interaction tends to be less effective.
Makes the race harder for them.
|
Spellskites are actually not as good as you might think in such situations. Reason being is that you are not playing blue and so life is NOT a free resource when you are trying to race a deck. Also, ancient grudge puts you behind in both card advantage and tempo if you run Spellskites. RDW is the aggressor here, and so it is up to the MBI player to make something happen before he dies. RDW should be siding in their ancient grudges anyways to take our your inkmoths and lashwrithes.
It does make it harder for them to kill you, but you are trading tempo for this insurance, and it doesn't even stall them for that long.
|
On October 26 2011 22:54 dignity wrote:
Spellskites are actually not as good as you might think in such situations. Reason being is that you are not playing blue and so life is NOT a free resource when you are trying to race a deck. Also, ancient grudge puts you behind in both card advantage and tempo if you run Spellskites. RDW is the aggressor here, and so it is up to the MBI player to make something happen before he dies. RDW should be siding in their ancient grudges anyways to take our your inkmoths and lashwrithes.
It does make it harder for them to kill you, but you are trading tempo for this insurance, and it doesn't even stall them for that long.
Ancient Grudges that would have gone towards your Lashwrithes and Inkmoths now needs to be spent on your Spellskites instead seems bad?
How does it put you behind in card advantage?
Why are you not carving your hand in MBI to beat them down and put them on the defensive is the better question imo considering Virulent Wounds play a ghetto Searing Blaze role in that matchup.
|
Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them.
And I thought I already said that having enough removal in your starting hand to deal with RDW is not feasible. Virulent wounds and contagion clasps are good and all but RDW doesn't just run 1 toughness creatures. If anything they side out their one drops against you. Stromkirks are not very useful when they become detrimental against you. Arsonists, on the other hand, turn your own virulent wounds/clasps into self hornet stings.
Also, burn the impure becomes almost a 2-for-1 in the sense that they would get a bolt out of it.
|
The real issue I've seen is, frankly, Koth. RDW could race fine, and it probably will, but I've seen enough players just resolve Shrine turn 2 and hold on to their burn spells until they can land Koth. There's almost nothing to say from that point on, Koth in at 4, two turns to emblem.
I mean, Koth doesn't show up every game. I imagine, he's pretty terrible to see though, if you play MBI.
|
On October 26 2011 23:49 dignity wrote:
Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them.
And I thought I already said that having enough removal in your starting hand to deal with RDW is not feasible. Virulent wounds and contagion clasps are good and all but RDW doesn't just run 1 toughness creatures. If anything they side out their one drops against you. Stromkirks are not very useful when they become detrimental against you. Arsonists, on the other hand, turn your own virulent wounds/clasps into self hornet stings.
Also, burn the impure becomes almost a 2-for-1 in the sense that they would get a bolt out of it.
Wat. So Ancient Grudges only gain Flashback when you have a Spellskite in play? What kind of logic is that? It's a 2 for 1 because of it's flashback not because you decided to board in Spellskite. It's coming in regardless of your Spellksite board or not.
How does Arsonist turn Wounds into a Hornet Stings? You're going to have to deal with the Arsonist at some point regardless, you can either take a few hits and then deal with it, or just pop a wound on it, take 1 and give them an infect counter.
This is why the vast majority of MBI players don't have a clue what they are doing.
|
I don't see how you possibly could not understand what he meant by "ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
It's clear what he means.
|
On October 27 2011 03:10 slyboogie wrote:
I don't see how you possibly could not understand what he meant by "ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
It's clear what he means.
No, this is what he means:
"Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
First of all, what card advantage? Better yet, why does it fucking matter? You just pointed a Grudge at your Spellskite instead of the Writhe or Inkmoth. Then he goes on to babble about life points like you had a choice in the matter. You can either lose those life points with no threats on the board, or you can lose those life points with a possibility of winning the game.
What I am saying is that his reasoning is flawed. He's saying Ancient Grudges are a two for one, therefore I don't want to bring in Spellskites, which is a flawed way of approaching Ancient Grudges out of their board.
|
On October 27 2011 03:24 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 03:10 slyboogie wrote:
I don't see how you possibly could not understand what he meant by "ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
It's clear what he means. No, this is what he means: "Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them." First of all, what card advantage? Better yet, why does it fucking matter? You just pointed a Grudge at your Spellskite instead of the Writhe or Inkmoth. Then he goes on to babble about life points like you had a choice in the matter. You can either lose those life points with no threats on the board, or you can lose those life points with a possibility of winning the game. What I am saying is that his reasoning is flawed. He's saying Ancient Grudges are a two for one, therefore I don't want to bring in Spellskites, which is a flawed way of approaching Ancient Grudges out of their board.
Exactly your last paragraph. Grudges are coming in regardless. His 2 for 1 is going to hit lash and inkmoth or spellskite and inkmoth/lash. Guess which one is better for you as MBI. How is this hard to understand.
|
On October 27 2011 03:40 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 03:24 Judicator wrote:On October 27 2011 03:10 slyboogie wrote:
I don't see how you possibly could not understand what he meant by "ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
It's clear what he means. No, this is what he means: "Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them." First of all, what card advantage? Better yet, why does it fucking matter? You just pointed a Grudge at your Spellskite instead of the Writhe or Inkmoth. Then he goes on to babble about life points like you had a choice in the matter. You can either lose those life points with no threats on the board, or you can lose those life points with a possibility of winning the game. What I am saying is that his reasoning is flawed. He's saying Ancient Grudges are a two for one, therefore I don't want to bring in Spellskites, which is a flawed way of approaching Ancient Grudges out of their board. Exactly your last paragraph. Grudges are coming in regardless. His 2 for 1 is going to hit lash and inkmoth or spellskite and inkmoth/lash. Guess which one is better for you as MBI. How is this hard to understand.
So umm, you don't side in Skites because they're siding in Grudges? What kind of shit is that? Their Grudges need to hit important shit, not Spellskite. Then by the same dumb logic, you would want to side out your Inkmoths and Writhes.
I would only agree IF you weren't dependent on those artifacts in the first place. You go from more lines of play to one shitty line of play.
|
I think you're like..MEGA overreacting. He's not saying "don't side in Spellskite, you're gonna get two for oned, dummy."
He's saying, "Be aware, Ancient Grudge has flashback, so you aren't totally safe just because you played Spellskite."
Your inference isn't right. Or at least it's way too over the top.
|
On October 27 2011 03:54 slyboogie wrote:
I think you're like..MEGA overreacting. He's not saying "don't side in Spellskite, you're gonna get two for oned, dummy."
He's saying, "Be aware, Ancient Grudge has flashback, so you aren't totally safe just because you played Spellskite."
Your inference isn't right. Or at least it's way too over the top.
More like, that shouldn't even need to be said in the first place...especially since I said it makes the race harder for the Red player. Then he's over there dwelling on the fact life isn't free against red (no shit sherlock), and there are ancient grudges (again like no shit sherlock).
|
I think Judicator just had a problem with him saying spellskite is card disadvantage because it turns ancient grudge into a 2 for 1. thats like saying having cards in hand turns mind rot into a 2 for 1. ancient grudge is a 2 for 1 unless you side out all the artifacts in your deck(or I guess all but 1)
|
On October 27 2011 03:46 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 03:40 Risen wrote:On October 27 2011 03:24 Judicator wrote:On October 27 2011 03:10 slyboogie wrote:
I don't see how you possibly could not understand what he meant by "ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
It's clear what he means. No, this is what he means: "Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them." First of all, what card advantage? Better yet, why does it fucking matter? You just pointed a Grudge at your Spellskite instead of the Writhe or Inkmoth. Then he goes on to babble about life points like you had a choice in the matter. You can either lose those life points with no threats on the board, or you can lose those life points with a possibility of winning the game. What I am saying is that his reasoning is flawed. He's saying Ancient Grudges are a two for one, therefore I don't want to bring in Spellskites, which is a flawed way of approaching Ancient Grudges out of their board. Exactly your last paragraph. Grudges are coming in regardless. His 2 for 1 is going to hit lash and inkmoth or spellskite and inkmoth/lash. Guess which one is better for you as MBI. How is this hard to understand. So umm, you don't side in Skites because they're siding in Grudges? What kind of shit is that? Their Grudges need to hit important shit, not Spellskite. Then by the same dumb logic, you would want to side out your Inkmoths and Writhes. I would only agree IF you weren't dependent on those artifacts in the first place. You go from more lines of play to one shitty line of play.
Go back to school and learn some reading comprehension, or take off your tin foil hat if you think everyone is disagreeing with you. I was supporting your point. I was saying you need to bring in the skites regardless of them siding in grudges because you're saving one of your more important cards in the process.
When I said exactly your last paragraph, what I meant was, I agree with your last paragraph. Not, "Your last paragraph is exactly what's wrong with this world and makes me want to torch the place" as you seem to be inferring.
|
On October 27 2011 08:53 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 03:46 Judicator wrote:On October 27 2011 03:40 Risen wrote:On October 27 2011 03:24 Judicator wrote:On October 27 2011 03:10 slyboogie wrote:
I don't see how you possibly could not understand what he meant by "ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them."
It's clear what he means. No, this is what he means: "Card advantage lost because ancient grudges have flashback. It becomes a 2-for-1 for them." First of all, what card advantage? Better yet, why does it fucking matter? You just pointed a Grudge at your Spellskite instead of the Writhe or Inkmoth. Then he goes on to babble about life points like you had a choice in the matter. You can either lose those life points with no threats on the board, or you can lose those life points with a possibility of winning the game. What I am saying is that his reasoning is flawed. He's saying Ancient Grudges are a two for one, therefore I don't want to bring in Spellskites, which is a flawed way of approaching Ancient Grudges out of their board. Exactly your last paragraph. Grudges are coming in regardless. His 2 for 1 is going to hit lash and inkmoth or spellskite and inkmoth/lash. Guess which one is better for you as MBI. How is this hard to understand. So umm, you don't side in Skites because they're siding in Grudges? What kind of shit is that? Their Grudges need to hit important shit, not Spellskite. Then by the same dumb logic, you would want to side out your Inkmoths and Writhes. I would only agree IF you weren't dependent on those artifacts in the first place. You go from more lines of play to one shitty line of play. Go back to school and learn some reading comprehension, or take off your tin foil hat if you think everyone is disagreeing with you. I was supporting your point. I was saying you need to bring in the skites regardless of them siding in grudges because you're saving one of your more important cards in the process. When I said exactly your last paragraph, what I meant was, I agree with your last paragraph. Not, "Your last paragraph is exactly what's wrong with this world and makes me want to torch the place" as you seem to be inferring.
I wasn't disagreeing with you Risen. I was pointing it out more clearly. Thanks for the reading comprehension joke. I was multi-tasking when I typed out my multiple posts on the same subject so I wasn't able to make it clearer in my first post on the topic.
And Orpheos, thanks for pointing that out too, because I know people didn't catch that.
|
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10123
It's like he's yelling at me 
Anyway, I think I'll try MBI, just a question, why run distress over despise? I guess distress gives more options, but I can't think of a deck that doesn't run an amazing creature. The 1 mana maybe is insignificant, since you don't have huge 2 drops, and you can always inkmoth turn 3 and still crusader to have both out for lastwrithe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
