What People in MTGO Are Hating Me For

D

DÛke

Guest
This is the deck that is pissing a lot of minds off. I get a lot of concedes as early as the 4th turn.

I call this evil and yet simple creation of mine - "Glitch."

The Glitch:
4x Memory Lapse
4x Hinder
4x Repel
4x Metamorphose
4x Boomerang
4x Echoing Truth
2x Time Stop

The Politics:
4x Peek

The Cheats:
4x Thieving Magpie
2x Uyo, Silent Prophet

Not only does it kick major butt, but the psychological impact that it has on a player is felt as early as turn 3. That's when I usually get cursed by our dear casual players of MTGO.

It's really simple. Not only do they not get to play spells, but they also get to never draw cards. Essentially, their game never really develops - they are in a stasis. They draw their first 7 or 8 cards, draw 3 or 4 more, at best, and that's it.

Thieving Magpie keeps the pressure, giving me access to Glitch spells. Peek is simply irritating - which is one of the goals of this deck: to irritate innocent people - and is actually very, very helpful here. It gives me the "in" as to whether I should use Metamorphose or not, Hinder or Memory Lapse, etc. It makes my decisions easier, especially since the opponent's hand will not really change that much. Once I know what he has, I know it for good.

Uyo is there for fun and some mid-game beat down; I also get to score some "originality" points here. Nothing like Boomerang-ing my opponent's 2 or 3 permanents when they already have nothing in play. With Metamorphose, it's even more sickening.

Every time I used Hinder, I used it as a Memory Lapse - the opponent simply couldn't recover from the Glitches enough to draw a real threat. Boomerang and Echoing Truth help me survive some early game, supposing that there is an early game (I could tell if I am going to win within the opponent’s first 2 or 3 plays), and help make Metamorphose that much more annoying.

Repel makes them cry. Enough said.

Time Stop is just pure evil. In all cases that I have used it, I simply played it during their upkeep to have them skip their turn, and especially, their draw step.

After about 10 rounds with this bad boy, I didn't lose a single game. However, I can't say I won them all since 4 out of the 10 simply conceded within the first 4 turns.

All in all, a very, very irritating deck that is surprisingly powerful, given its simplistic design. And there is nothing at all like being called names by an opponent about to concede out of indescribable frustration.

I'm thinking of a Green/Blue build for this one, mostly for Temporal Spring and maybe, maybe Plow Under. I have also seriously considered Scrivener instead of the Magpie, but I need advice on that one...and also room in my deck.
 
F

Force of Will Smith

Guest
i've thought these builds were often powerful. I remember a lame 8th edition draft involving boomerangs, counters, fliers, and things like sage owl to rearrange the top 4.

G/U could do some sick things.. Stunted Growth works very much like a plow under and costs exactly the same, plus with g/u you can twincast a plowunder or a repel.. 2 less creatures... 2 less draws..

i think it's funny that people concede against it so much. I guess they figure you'll always have an answer to their threat.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
lol

Well when we're in a casual room, people expect you to "play nice." That translates to: "no LD, no discard, no counters." Slowly, I've noticed they're adding "no bounce" to their endless list of nonsense.

To be fair to my deck, it's not exactly a "bounce" deck. It also doesn't really have a "hard" counter. Hinder might seem like one, but I have never used it as such, like I said - I've only used it as a Memory Lapse that costs 1UU.

Those who have conceded didn't concede due to the bounce or counter, but due to the fact that it was their 4th or 5th turn and they hadn't really done anything whatsoever. Not even draw cards.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
I guess this depends very much on what you consider a win.
 
C

Crackdown

Guest
I would probably concede to it as well in the casual deck room if I weren't playing the right deck to oppose it.

In fact, I'd probably just concede to it and go play another game against someone where it would be enjoyable.

You get the win, I get to enjoy playing Magic.

That seems like a reasonable trade to me, although you don't really get to play, so from your persective, it might be different.

If you want to really play the deck, go to the tournament practice room and play 2 out of 3 matches against decks that have game against MUC. If you want to simply beat up (in single matches) underpowered casual decks with a deck that requires proper sideboarding against it, then stay in the casual room and receive disinterest at best and a lot of blocking.

. . .

Ok, that was a rant of sorts. But truthfully, Blue control often requires proper sideboarding to win against and when you're playing single games against a casual deck field, the odds are completely stacked in your favor. The same is true for Scepter-Chant/Boomerang, Ponza decks and Rat locks as well as most tier one decks. Some people might have the right build to play against it, but most do not and very few even have sideboards in that room (although advertising 2/3 matches would be more honorable).

I don't begrudge your right to play what you want in that room, but I'm there for my enjoyment, not yours. So, if I'm not playing with Boseiju/Choke and Defense Grid maindeck (who would?), I'll concede early and move on to play someone else and have some fun.

..................

On a separate note, the article and thread on playing against Blue Control really helped me. I put together an anti-tooth deck for FNM and also a sideboard against blue control. The ironic part is that it beat up MBC, lost against an extremely fast red deck I built for my son's friend (no rares) and then proceeded to go against a strong G/U control deck with Shackles.

In the past I'd lose horribly to such decks. This time, I lost game one horribly. Game two, I sideboarded in 4 Defense Grid and 4 Choke, along with Sword of Fire and Ice. Games two and three were all mine. That wouldn't have happened prior to you all giving good advice on how to play against Blue.
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
Looks very weak to me. Incredible dependence on Thieving Magpie and no visible means of support to get you into a position to protect the Magpie.
 
J

jorael

Guest
Gizmo said:
Looks very weak to me. Incredible dependence on Thieving Magpie and no visible means of support to get you into a position to protect the Magpie.
What do you mean? That deck is crammed with counterspells and bounce!

:confused:
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
Crammed with counterspells? 4 Hinder and 4 Lapse? Crammed? And 'cramming' a deck with bounce is not exactly a good thing.

Bounce is card disadvantage, and Memory Lapse is card disadvantage. The deck's whole plan is to surf it's spells, each one setting the opponent back a turn - but that only works when you've got the Magpie or Uyo to power the deck past the land it will see. Without those the deck does nothing.

Say Im playing a deck of monsters and removal - you cant ever kill the monsters, only bounce them back... which I can live with because you'll run out bounce unless you make and keep Magpie so I'll run against the bounce and delay tactics quite happily knowing that they are generating card advantage for me (*see below). Protecting the Magpie needs 6 Mana at least if Im playing removal, and most likely 8 or 9 mana if I'm going to be saving my removal up or I'm going to have the spell Lapsed and draw it again. You make Magpie and it's toast, and the chances are that waiting till youve got the 7-9 land you need to make Magpie will kill you anyway from the card disadvantage inherent in the rest of the deck. In the ENTIRE DECK only the 4 Hinder actually stop something I want to do, the rest only delay the inevitable.

The deck is 100% garbage.


*I get card advantage from things like Repel and Memory Lapse because 40% of your deck is land. Every time you Memory Lapse my spell you give me a 100% chance of drawing a spell next time, but yourself only a 60% chance and a 40% chance of drawing a land that is effectively a dead card. I'll happily play those odds all day, not to mention when spells like Boomerang simply delay for a turn and dont even draw you a card to compensate.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
Oh I know the deck is 100% garbage. That's why it's not my deck of choice when playing in tournies online, or at least, not when playing "seriously." Come online for a second and I'll be sure to teach you how to play Magic with a real deck designed to school the opponent.

This deck's goal is solely to irritate casual players, without being so unfriendly to them (I keep it lighthearted with conversation throughout the game). And does that marvelously.

It's good for laughs, and it's successful at that, supposing that the other player has a casual spirit about it. So far, I'd say that it's about 50/50. 50 percent hate it so much that they concede. And the other 50 just laughs it off in amusement. That's worth it.
 
J

jorael

Guest
I don't disagree with the fact that the deck is unreliable. You are right, bouncing and memory lapse will only stall, but they can protect the magpie. So I disagreed with last part of your the sentence that I quoted. The deck has some protection.

A card like fatigue would fit just nicely in a deck like this! Add 4x Isochron's Scepter and it could get really nasty. Hmm.... adding scepter is what I would do. That or add green for Plow Under and Stunted Growth, which do generate advantage.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
Gizmo:

U-Turn much?
The first quote is me saying that I haven't lost any game with the deck.

The second quote is of me saying that about 50% of opponents hate the deck and about 50% think the deck is amusing.

The first quote and the second quote, each being a single different variable, have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that they were mentioned within the same context.

So on that note,

Read much?
 
O

orgg

Guest
Giz, I think the amusement in the first post stems from knowing that the deck is quite beatable in the long run. It's just that some bad players don't think they can beat a Burn, Land Destruction, or Control deck.
 
E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
The concept is solid. The application is really, really quite terrible.


I fail to see how this deck could even step-up against a mono-green deck stuffed with fat creatures and mana acceleration, much less anything better. Your gameplan is to ditch cards to your bin without even getting rid of your opponent's? Wow, what a tremendous idea. :rolleyes:

Magpie won't be out until at least turn 4. What are you going to spend the first 3 turns doing? Acting reactively to your opponent by handing them mountains of card advantage? What happens when you run out of gas?

You need some hard counters, and you need some reusable stall (or at least some stall that cantrips). Look into Isochron Scepter and Viridian Shackles.

The first quote is me saying that I haven't lost any game with the deck.

The second quote is of me saying that about 50% of opponents hate the deck and about 50% think the deck is amusing.

The first quote and the second quote, each being a single different variable, have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that they were mentioned within the same context.

So on that note,

Read much?

Not only does it kick major butt, but the psychological impact that it has on a player is felt as early as turn 3. That's when I usually get cursed by our dear casual players of MTGO.

It's really simple. Not only do they not get to play spells, but they also get to never draw cards. Essentially, their game never really develops - they are in a stasis. They draw their first 7 or 8 cards, draw 3 or 4 more, at best, and that's it.
After about 10 rounds with this bad boy, I didn't lose a single game. However, I can't say I won them all since 4 out of the 10 simply conceded within the first 4 turns.

All in all, a very, very irritating deck that is surprisingly powerful, given its simplistic design.

Oh I know the deck is 100% garbage.

Giz called you on your bull****, and when you then realized there would be no logical way that your deck was as super-wonderful as you first started spouting, you backpedaled. When he called you on that, you threw a temper tantrum and slandered him.

It's pretty crystal clear, even if one had just skimmed the thread.

I'd say you owe an apology.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
This is a bounce deck.

A bounce deck is like a counter deck, except less...well, less effective, to be honest.

Do you really win if you only win because you bore your opponents to death?
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Exaulted_Leader said:
Giz called you on your bull****, and when you then realized there would be no logical way that your deck was as super-wonderful as you first started spouting, you backpedaled. When he called you on that, you threw a temper tantrum and slandered him.

It's pretty crystal clear, even if one had just skimmed the thread.

I'd say you owe an apology.
I did more than skim, and I couldn't see the libel (or slander, as you call it) you are referring to. Could you point it out?
 
E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
So on that note,

Read much?
Claiming that someone doesn't read because you don't like the fact that they gave you a solid rebuttal is slander in my books.
 
Top