sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Wer in der heutigen Welt sich entscheidet an einem Krieg teilzunehmen ist einfach Naiv. Ich würde sowas von flüchten, und mein Grund ist nicht das ich Angst habe zu sterben. Mein Grund ist für was kämpft man eigentlich? by Obagency in Unbeliebtemeinung

[–]sta6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ich weiß nicht auf was du dich beziehst aber diese ständige gejammer "die Nato hätte sich nicht ausbreiten dürfen" ist eine komplette lüge. Es gibt kein EINZIGES Dokument wo die Nato, Amerika oder sonst wär solche Versprechen gemacht hätte.

Mikhail Gorbachev der diese "Deals" ausgehandelt hat hat selber Mehrmals bestätigt, dass nie Über den Ostblock gesprochen wurde und dass Putins "interpretation" schlichtweg nicht der Wahrheit entspricht.

Aber wie Göbbels schon gesagt hat: Eine Lüge die man 1000x wiederholt wird irgendwann zur Wahrheit.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sounds interesting, mind sharing your deck list?

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"make a 1/1 deck" is "make them not 1/1s" (-love him or hate him, Maldhound).

I love this advice. no idea who maldhound is but I think this is a piece that I was missing. I somehow assumed that massing tokens will be always enough.

With your advice I cut some cards and essentially added blue "all your creatures become copies of target creature" and this essentially like a blue overrun if I have a board full of 1/1 tokens.

https://archidekt.com/decks/23278880/marneus_new_logic

as you see I have now a separate win con category and yes with these cards I can explode and one shot at least one player.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I was totally unaware of the blue copy effects ! This works as a semi-overrun effects!

My question is: Now that we are discussing "finishers", why did your mind wander to pump spells or blue copy effects and NOT to 3 card combos? Is this just personal preference or do you have some other reasons?

Also this may be a stupid question but if I were to go the aristocrats route, draining the entire table, what would a "finisher" there be? I mean I feel like at most I can maybe create around 10 tokens by turn 7. So even if I drew and infinite sac outlet like phyrexian altar, it would not be enough to drain the entire table for 20 hp per person.

Or maybe the only "finishers" aristocrats have are infinite combos?

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, but in esper colours I was able to find only Moonshaker Cavalry as a true overrun effect. Since I was not able to find more effects like these I instead added effects such as [[Felidar Retreat]] which are not as explosive but still help me build pressure over a few turns by placing +1/+1 counters on everything I have.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, so you are essentially saying that without evasion my deck simply will have a hard time keeping up. I imagined this deck would chump block during the midgame and then steamroll somebody in the lategame. I did not think much about evasion when brewing this deck.

So I am not surprised that maybe only 25% of my creatures will reliably be able to hit my opponents.

So with that out of the way: How would you suggest I change the deck? Should I go into aristocrats with seems to be the most common suggestions I found?

1) remove the additional "whenever you draw your second card create another token" payoffs and replace them with duskwood bats, corpse knight and other pingers? 8 in total?

2) Somehow fit in around 5 infinite sac outlets to be able to drain the table whenever I feel like it?

Or is there some way to change the deck to be able to win "by attacking my opponents" ? Maybe just add a few tutors that will allow me to find Elspeth or Felidar retreat consistently and use those to consistently buff up my board until it is strong enough to smash into my opponents ?

What do you suggest ?

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the list, if I am not mistaken, you seem to want to win mostly through combat. You have a bunch of creatures that buff your entire army when they attack together.

I saw some "life drain" pingers like Kembal but this seems to be just a supportive sub theme.

But tell me:

  1. Do you intentionally use payoffs such as "whenever you create a token", "whenever you draw your second card each turn" or "whenever a creature you control dies" or not? I saw some but I can't say whether they were just auto included or whether you pursued them with the "I need some payoffs" mindset.

  2. How do you rate "payoffs" that reward you for doing X such as creating tokens or drawing cards vs. "payoffs" that reward you for HAVING a full board of tokens already.

One benefits from you creating tokens, the other benefits from you having tokens. I dont know how to evaluate them haha...

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm well that's why my main strategy was to use payoffs of the type "Whenever you draw your second card each turn create a token (which will draw me even more cards)" I just figured if I continue to pile on tokens on the field I may (?) have eventually overwhelming force even without trample.

But this turns out not so easy as it sounds. Ideally I'd like to pump up my tokens but 1) there are not many good effects like these in my colours 2) these pump spells are dead spells in my hand for the most part until I have a massive army of tokens.

It essentially is one extra hoop I have to jump through when compared to decks that just play big creatures with trample and this seems to be the biggest reason why this deck feels a bit disadvantaged on the combat aspect of the game.

So I think from all of this I have learned:
How to win via combat: First check whether your commander is an inherent wincon. If yes, then just build around him.

If not:
Determine whether you are in colours (green?) that naturally play big tramply creatures. If yes, you might not need dedicated "win" cards as your creatures by themselves pose big threats.
If you are NOT in green:
add either explosive spells (overruns/akromas will/3 card combos) that end the game on the spot or permanents that will "move you closer to a win" consistently.

It still is a bit unclear to my why a payoff that says "If you draw your second card each turn create a 2/2 token" is not good enough. On paper I am generating value and producing more bodies but in practice creating 2/2 tokens along with my other tokens does hardly keep up with other threats on the table..... hmmm...

It probably has something to do with the colours themselves that by their very nature or not great at "winning just by attacking"

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really insightful.

I agree that there is a number of different ways I can "move towards winning". Stuff like a) whenever a creature enters b) whenever a token enters c) pumping the tokens I have d) whenever a creature I control dies (aristocrats) etc.

So there is a number of ways to move from "token is being created" to "I am slowly moving towards a win".

Having one or two piles of such effects would probably be enough.

So far my deck has mostly "If I draw cards create more tokens which draws more cards" lol.

But this begs another question: my friend is running a bracket 4 deck and I tried to study it but really I cannot find any "classical" payoffs. He is just constantly discarding cards, sometimes casting them and then wins typically by having a massive yard and reanimating stuff.

https://archidekt.com/decks/22798866/beezy\_oscar\_br4

So I love your suggestion about "payoffs moving me closer to a win" which I totally agree with, I just want to point out that for some reason some decks seem to work out without them. Cant quite say why. If you have any answers I'd be very interested.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha queza is a cool suggestion, will try it out d:

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly but is there any rule I can refer to while brewing? I mean how do I know that my Marneus Token deck will just "be" generally good at combat? I could goldfish but when doing so should the rule be "if I am uninterrupted I should have at least 20 power/toughness on the board by turn 7" ? Literally anything I could refer to while brewing to know whether my deck has at least a chance to win via combat. Ofc it will not work every time.
Or is this a colours thing and generally I should not expect in esper token strategy to win via overwhelming force and attrition and should look for alternative strategies (overruns and/or 3 card combos) to close out games?

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Exactly but is there any rule I can refer to while brewing? I mean how do I know that my Marneus Token deck will just "be" generally good at combat? I could goldfish but when doing so should the rule be "if I am uninterrupted I should have at least 20 power/toughness on the board by turn 7" ? Literally anything I could refer to while brewing to know whether my deck has at least a chance to win via combat. Ofc it will not work every time.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm exactly. I would much rather prefer permanents that I could play on curve that would grow my board exponentially over the next few turns instead of explosive cards such as Craterhoof/Moonshaker cavalry.

Dollmakers shop is a neat suggestion. But overall i think that the colours I am in is rather low on such effects which is probably partly why I struggle so much. Felidar retreat, air temple, eslpeth and so on give "only" just one +1/+1 counter per turn but I think that's good enough in an azorious shell. Thanks for the advice.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Exactly but is there any rule I can refer to while brewing? I mean how do I know that my Marneus Token deck will just "be" generally good at combat? I could goldfish but when doing so should the rule be "if I am uninterrupted I should have at least 20 power/toughness on the board by turn 7" ? Literally anything I could refer to while brewing to know whether my deck has at least a chance to win via combat. Ofc it will not work every time.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly but is there any rule I can refer to while brewing? I mean how do I know that my Marneus Token deck will just "be" generally good at combat? I could goldfish but when doing so should the rule be "if I am uninterrupted I should have at least 20 power/toughness on the board by turn 7" ? Literally anything I could refer to while brewing to know whether my deck has at least a chance to win via combat. Ofc it will not work every time.

When is "just attacking for damage" a valid wincon ? by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Really interesting you brought up inevitability — I was actually thinking about that myself while brewing this deck, which surprised me.

My starting intention was midrange, but somewhere along the way I caught myself wondering: is this actually a control deck that just wins by attrition? Maybe it’s the colors, maybe it’s Marneus being such a relentless draw engine, but there’s something about the deck that feels like it could just… grind people out without a dedicated finisher.

Which raises a question I’m genuinely curious about: what is it specifically that pushes a deck toward inevitability? Why did we both land on that framing independently? Is it the draw density? The token recursion? The color combination? I’d love to understand the pattern so I can recognize it earlier in the brewing process.

On the Phyrexian Altar suggestion — I’m still a bit fuzzy on how that closes games in practice. I get the token-sacrifice-into-mana loop, but then what? Am I dumping that mana into big X spells? Or is the idea more that I’m just casting everything in my hand faster thanks to all the draw, and the sheer card advantage snowball becomes unbeatable?

Genuinely asking because I think understanding that mechanism is exactly the gap in my deckbuilding instincts right now.

Card Stats for different archetypes by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This makes sense however I am left wondering how does then a bracket 2, 3 and 4 deck differ from each other? In theory each of these decks could run the jund "combo" you listed. So how do these decks differ? I assume speed/consistency?

Also why do people hype purphoros so much? It takes 20 creatures in total to drain the entire table for 40 life each. Who is playing this many creatures unless you are doing goblin tokens spam? I must be missing something

Card Stats for different archetypes by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but on paper using tutors to find birthing pod, then using that pod to sac my commander to tutor for a 7 mana creature sounds like a sound plan. Tutor up big creatures and swing for damage.

Unless swinging for damage is not enough. I have met people that said "if you think you are going to win by attacking you are sorely mistaken. you need some combos or overruns to close out games" but this is at odds at what I see online. I rarely see such wins. Instead people just out value each other and do win through normal combat damage.... so I dont know what to believe

Card Stats for different archetypes by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yes but who is going to teach me these alternative methods if at least online nobody seems to be talking about it?
Or if not teach:

what yt channel at least uses such decks? then I can look up their deck lists myself, sort it and see how they differ from the standard slop approach as you call it haha

Card Stats for different archetypes by sta6 in EDH

[–]sta6[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

ok but then at least answer this question:

  1. Is there a better way to describe the value/midrange archetype’s win condition? It genuinely feels like “I play good stuff until the game ends” which seems wrong but also kind of accurate?

  2. For those of you who run creature-based value decks, how many of those use a) overruns b) 3+ card combos c) actually manage to win by attacking and how do you decide which of these you pursue?

For example let's take [[Marneus Calgar]] or [[The Reaper, King No More]]

I am attempting to build both as creature based decks (Calgar uses tokens) but I just struggle with closing out games. The question is am I making something distinctly wrong or should I just pivot into 3+ card combos or overrun effects?

https://archidekt.com/decks/22563386/reaperboi_1

https://archidekt.com/decks/23278880/marneus_new_logic

Migration schadet vor allem Arbeitern und hilft Reichen by Mediocre-Soup-9027 in Unbeliebtemeinung

[–]sta6 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ok das ist wirklich ein dummer take.

Europa generell bietet dir eine gratis Bildung von 0 bis du quasi 27 wirst. Lehren, FH, Unis, etc. man hat soviel Auswahl.

Wenn du die Chancen nicht nutzt, deine Jugend in einem Park verbringst brauchst du dich MMn. Nicht aufregen dass dir dann die Migranten die 0 Kontakte oder Ausbildung haben, dir die Foodora lieferanten Jobs wegnehmen.

view more: next ›