Polls close in 8 days (since New Years is in here)
How does Malignant Growth combo with Stasis and Chronatog? You have to take turns in order to add counters to it. In order to be equal to Black Vise (aside from requiring two different types of colored mana and costing five times as much to play), you have to take three turns after playing it, which means you need to pay the upkeep three times as well as paying the upkeep for Stasis three times, requiring at least six more mana and more turns than Vise would.BigBlue;276098 said:I sort of agreed w/ you until I thought of Stasis... I could see it working real well w/ Stasis & Chronatog - I usually had trouble skipping my turns as they'd eventually catch up... This gives them a time limit and is an alternative to Vise etc.
Well yeah. The idea isn't that the Caliph is a good card. It's that it's not that incredibly bad. I kind of disagree with Spidey on it not necessarily being "Hall of Shame" worthy. If it were in a different set, it could very easily be the worst card for that set. But this is Mirage.BigBlue;276169 said:Spidey - Caliph w/ Spirit Link would be a push... For every damage dealt I'd gain 1 and lose a life. for 2 cards, 3 colors and 5 mana, I'd rather have an Air Elemental w/o the trample - or a Juggernaut for equal colorless mana.
So what do you do? Pay 3UG to put down Malignant Growth, next turn pay 1 for the upkeep, put down Stasis, then next turn pay 2 for Malignant Growth and U for Stasis?OS - You can choose not to skip a turn or two to pay the upkeep and get a couple counters... w/ Stasis the cards become useless draws + pain. You don't really need the chronatog, just a bit of mana or any of the other useful ways to pay for stasis...
Malignant Growth with Winter Orb? Since only one of your lands will be untapping each turn and you already tapped six of them before you started doing damage, you'd fail to pay the upkeep in short order. The effect would be to tap yourself out, deal maybe a little bit of damage, and give your opponent a few free draws.You could also use MG in a Winter Orb deck to good effect. It isn't that bad a card when combined w/ limiting resources.
Heh, of course, you and six other voters But all I'm saying is that while I can think of one card to negate the Caliph's disadvantage and turn it into an otherwise awesome creature (4 mana for a 4/4 flying trample guy!), it's hard to turn, say, my nomination into a decent card. Yeah, it might hose multicolor decks as you pointed out (and actually a foil for the Caliph deck), but it's still more situational and it still restricts you as the deck builder to a certain way of building (at least the way I see it). Spirit Link is useful no matter what (well, as long as you or your opponent has creatures).I kind of disagree with Spidey on it not necessarily being "Hall of Shame" worthy.
You mean, synergy, right? I don't see how it has synergy with anything more than the Caliph has synergy with Spirit Link or Pandemonium or Altar of Dementia or whatever. It's even useful by itself. Cards that hurt both you and your opponent have a long history of use in aggressive decks. Juzam Djinn, Carnophage, Hatred, Flame Rift, Flesh Reaver, etc. Emberwilde Caliph is just a rather crappy one that requires two different colors and is overcosted. It will still be a major threat against any opponent at low life. In order to do the same for Malignant Growth, you have to give examples of other cards that are already good by themselves in a scenario where tons of cards, including Emberwilde Caliph, would be better.BigBlue;276259 said:I guess my point is that Malignant growth has symbiosis w/ enough cards that it isn't the worst card in the set. Like most cards, it isn't the centerpiece to a deck, but it could be a good role player.
I fully agree. Warping Wurm just isn't that bad. The Caliph is worse.Emberwild Caliph on the other hand, is neither a centerpiece or a good role player - you have to work around it to make it even playable. Yeah, it wasn't necessarily fair to bring Juggernaut into the equation... (I was going after a 4CC creature which had to attack every turn). But how about I bring another nominee into the equation, I'd rather have a Warping Wurm than an Emberwilde Caliph.
Giving your opponent card draws while you pay for them makes a card not only bad, but the worst card in the game. Your opponent doesn't need Disenchant to deal with it either. All he needs is for you to run out of mana to pay the cumulative upkeep.Every card has at least one thing that negates it - but, rather than worry about it pulling a kill card, embrace that it takes a card from your opponent to deal w/ it... That's sort of the point. You have to hope that eventually your opponent will run out of (or fail to draw) ways to deal w/ your cards. Swords to Plowshares deals with just about every creature (sans those w/ shroud or pro white), does that make every creature horrible? No. Just as Disenchant doesn't make every Enchantment and Artifact horrible.
That's not exactly accurate though. You can't just let it go whenever you want. You HAVE to let it go when you run out of mana to pay the upkeep, which will happen fairly quickly unless you have a lot of mana to invest. Being able to let your really crappy enchantment die by not paying its cumulative upkeep doesn't strike me as an advantage.BigBlue;276310 said:Well, but in the case of Malignant Growth, Upkeep isn't a bad thing since you can let it go whenever you want. My point isn't that it's optimal - because it obviously isn't...
But this is a terrible way to do it. The amount of mana you spend per card you make your opponent draw is prohibitive. The only way you'd deck the opponent is if his library was already down really low, in which case simply stalling would work.But, put into a mana control deck, it would be useful... There are times you *want* your opponent to draw cards so you can either deck them or do something else to them (Storm Seeker for example).
You have a very good imagination.Again, my point was, I could see myself trying to use Malignant Growth...
Remember Flesh Reaver? It's like that, only really bad. Still way better than Malignant Growth.but I'd never use Emberwilde Caliph... which was why to me it's a worse card. Maybe in actual play I'd find it was too bad a card for practical use... And maybe I'm missing out not using the caliph... But the promise of a 4/4 Flying Trample for 4 was shattered when you read the drawbacks (life loss, and never a blocker). Your opponent gets some lifegain when you think you have them and he's a liability I'd need to use a second card to eliminate. With Malignant Growth, if I lost part of the lock, I'd simply not pay the upkeep and it's gone - it has a self destruct method.
Juzam Djinn rules in Shandalar. I mean, I wouldn't use Emberwilde Caliph there either (but I always do the same thing, which is build up a bunch of Dark Rituals and Contract from Belows and just Drain Life everything to death on the first turn).As far as playing drawback cards in decks, I do. I weigh the drawback and if it's not too great I've got no problem using a card like Serendib Efreet, Serendib Djinn, Juzam Djinn, etc... Bear in mind I've never seen either of those djinni IRL, I get them in sealed on the Shandalar game though, and love them there.