It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:10 am





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Felidar Sovereign 
Author Message
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
aaron.the.relentless wrote:
:roll: Who plays terror or bolt in EDH?

Seriously!

Spot removal is extremely rare among the decks in our group and mass removal is scarce outside of the decks I shuffle up.

I think if this doesn't get stolen, the only form of "removal" i see with any sort of regularity, it wins on the next turn.

Ummm, I do. I imagine I'm not alone, although to be fair most mass removal cards are fairly expensive, and so can't be put into every deck by every play. I traded my *** off to get 6 Damnations, and that's only enough for one regular deck and 2 EDH decks. Come to that, I've been playing since revised but I think I only have one Wrath!

For the record, the first time you play a white deck post-Zendikar, you have forsaken the right to complain about 'ganging up'. I'm not threatening to kill you, but I'll sure bring you below 40 as fast as I can =D


Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
Profile E-mail
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 237
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
This is what I love about playing multiplayer at shakeys. "Let's get Aaron out of the way, so we can play magic!"

No wonder I'd rather play call of duty.


Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:10 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 96
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
All the hostilities aside, it is by no means surprising if after playing this you become the main target of the entire table. Since for most plays you will have to survive until your actual next upkeep (and with 40+ life no less) it is very fair to assume that SOMEONE will manage to either kill the Sovereign or reduce you below 40 life.

That leaves the sudden-death strategies where you somehow cheat it out EOT and take a surprise win. Chord of Calling comes to mind, but Teferi and similar effects (Winding Canyons for example) can do similar things. I find that an okay strategy for an EDH match.

-BUT-

This is pretty much a one-trick pony. You are the guy with the finger on the apocalypse button and consequently about as popular as Kim Jong-il. While of course I feel with you on the "Kill Aaron first" issue, it is an entirely different matter when you go into a match with everyone knowing you can drop the big one at any time.

Thus, my conclusion for Felidar Sovereign would be:

It is a nice card that adds an alternate winning condition to a number of established EDH decks. It is however, at least in casual multiplayer, NOT a good card to build an exclusive deck around because people will know and will hate and will make life miserable for everyone.

I would say the best way to play it is in a conservative control deck with lots of permission, protection and life gain to begin with. And not as a main plan either, but rather one of the many I-Win-Buttons that such decks usually like to win with anyway. That way, it does remain a threat, but given the variance over several games it shouldn't be scary enough for other players to hate your guts.


Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:17 pm
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
aaron.the.relentless wrote:
"So is this banned in EDH yet or do I have to make a deck around it?
...
I want to explain how easy it will be to win with this card
...
I can imagine the deck winning on the 3rd turn with a good draw. And I am fairly sure I can design it so that it happens that way... a lot
...
I think if this doesn't get stolen, the only form of "removal" i see with any sort of regularity, it wins on the next turn
...
This is what I love about playing multiplayer at shakeys. "Let's get Aaron out of the way, so we can play magic!" No wonder I'd rather play call of duty."


Which of these statements is logically inconsistent with the others?








Seriously, Aaron, your definition of "unfair ganging up" is a lot like my definition of trying to win/trying not to lose. If you announce the deck in this way, how can you expect me not to do what I can to prevent a quick Felidar Sovereign win?

Vaso has it absolutely right...Sovereign will go into at leastt one of my decks bcos it's a cool card, but I am personally not interested in building a combo deck for it. If you are, that's fine, but over the course of say 2-3 games, your chances of winning with that combo deck go down as other people realize what the biggest threat is. What's happened here is that you announced it, giving us foreknowledge of the threat. That's why I stipulated 1) If you play a white deck, and 2) post-Zendikar.


Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:57 am
Profile E-mail
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 237
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Image


Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:14 am
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
defenestrator wrote:
aaron.the.relentless wrote:
"So is this banned in EDH yet or do I have to make a deck around it?
...
I want to explain how easy it will be to win with this card
...
I can imagine the deck winning on the 3rd turn with a good draw. And I am fairly sure I can design it so that it happens that way... a lot
...
I think if this doesn't get stolen, the only form of "removal" i see with any sort of regularity, it wins on the next turn
...
This is what I love about playing multiplayer at shakeys. "Let's get Aaron out of the way, so we can play magic!" No wonder I'd rather play call of duty."


Which of these statements is logically inconsistent with the others?

I'm still curious about your answer to this question.


Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:04 am
Profile E-mail
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 237
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Oh, I didn't realize that you wanted an answer. I figured you were trying to set up a rhetorical question.

Fine, I'll play along, but your analysis of what is being said is far too simple and this is why we are disagreeing.

My answer to your question is not the last quote you selected. At least not entirely. Choosing to do something that's fun over something that's not fun is quite logical. The most illogical statement in that sequence is actually the first part of the last quote:

Quote:
This is what I love about playing multiplayer at shakeys. "Let's get Aaron out of the way, so we can play magic!"


As I am sure that you will not understand what I mean, let me reword the quotes you have selected:

I HAVE IDENTIFIED **AND SHARED** A VERY POWERFUL STRATEGY. (this is basically the 1st 2 quotes)

I AM CONVINCED THAT IF SOME SORT OF BANNING DOES NOT HAPPEN, I CAN USE THIS CARD TO WIN VERY QUICKLY.

THE DECKS THAT ARE BEING DESIGNED DECK AND PLAYED AT SHAKEYS ARE INHERENTLY FLAWED IN THAT THEY ARE NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE MOST SIMPLE CREATURE BASED THREATS, MUCH LESS THE ONE I'VE SHARED WITH THE GROUP.

(start illogical sequence) RATHER THAN ADJUST THEIR DECKS/STRATEGY, CERTAIN DARYL-NAMED MEMBERS OF THE GROUP HAVE CHOSEN TO MAKE THE GAME UNPLEASANT FOR THE GUY WHO HAS BUILT HIS DECK IN A WAY THAT EXPOSES THE GROUP'S UNWILLINGNESS TO PREPARE. (end illogical sequence)

AS I AM THAT GUY, RATHER THAN DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT FUN (getting ganged up on and losing), I'LL DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS FUN INSTEAD. (yaaay killing nazi zombies!)

+++++++++

does this make my point a little clearer?

from my point of view, the answer is very simple: when presented with a "new" type of threat (umm... "creatures"?), you just make sure that you have a reasonable out.

If you don't have a reasonable out, is it because this type of threat is particularly narrow (i.e. storm combo into tendrils of agony, untargetable, protection from whatever, etc?) or is it because you didn't build your deck to be able to handle a specific type of threat? And I'm not talking about a "what do i do about main deck story circle when I'm playing Mono black control??" specific type of threat here. This is just an early creature. An early white creature. With no inherent way to protect itself other than a large ***.

Sometimes there just is no decent out, and you have to shrug... but, with Sovereign...

Well, whatever. The answer to your question is the quote i have above. Your flawed design tendency is exposed, and you designate me as the "threat" and proceed to harass me and encourage others to do so as well.

You asked, I answered.


Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:29 am
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Well, that makes more sense than LOLCat, but you haven't exactly claimed the logical high ground yet.

In case you don't read the whole post (I know it's long, but so was yours, and I read it twice), let me make it simple:
Axiom 1: Eliminate the biggest threat to you
Corollary: The guy representing an almost instant win is a BIG threat to you, and should have his win condition eliminated

Firstly, dealing with most creatures does not necessarily demand the right removal in hand at the right moment, does it? I think you will agree that the Sovereign is a fairly unique creature in this respect (of course you agree...you started this thread). I can have every WoG variant plus 4 StP in my deck, confidently deal with almost every creature in the game, but only have 4 outs to EOT Felidar.
Secondly, I still think you underestimate the amount of removal in the group and overestimate the probability of finding the right removal at the right time in an EDH deck (where are the specifics? I'd love to hear how much removal of what types you recommend for an EDH deck - please include that in your next post!).
Thirdly, the Felidar win can be dealt with in two ways - get in for beats or kill the creature. As I would prefer to cast my own spells rather than tremulously leave half my mana untapped, it seems logical to me to attack you to below 40 life and then tap out to cast my own threats. Kindly explain to me if/how I am wrong, but if:
* you have (e.g.) Quicksilver Amulet ready to go, and are on 40 life
* I have a 4-drop in play, 5 mana and a terminate in hand
I can either stunt my own development by holding back Kresh (etc) in order to terminate your Sovereign, or I can attack you to below 40 and play Kresh, relatively secure in the knowledge that you can't win before my untap.
Do you agree with my analysis? If so, then I think you are being too liberal with the term "ganging up".

I appreciate you sharing the tech, but you were not speaking hypothetically, you were saying "I will make a deck around it that performs in this way." I was simply taking you at your word. If you post "I am so excited by Kalitas, the Blood Chief. I know he's kind of janky but I love vampires so much i want to build a deck around him" (I miss Jeff already!) then you will not be seen as the biggest threat. Is that not clear?
To paraphrase your post, RATHER THAN DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT FUN (watching Aaron combo out to win before the end of his 4th turn), I'LL DO SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD. You build killer decks and expect the group not to balance against you, but balance of power is such a fundamental part of this kind of group interaction. Internal balancing (better deck construction) is part of that, but you treat external balancing (i.e. multiple actors working against a shared threat, regardless of the level of collusion) as alien, unfair or unnatural. My degrees are in International Relations and believe me, it's not.


Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 94
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Guys......you're.....doing.......it.......again........
GROW UP :evil:


Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:09 pm
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
---------
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Well, if Aaron doesn't want to play MPM at Shakey's, that's his call, but I still believe that his feelings on this issue are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of multiplayer dynamics - i.e. he feels ganged up on when fairly common balancing behavior occurs. In my experience, that sort of thing is inevitable and unrelated to who the 'victim' is, rather than any personal animosity (etc) towards him.
Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment, but I don't think there's anything wrong with using the forums to discuss such a fundamental issue. Hopefully he and I (and anyone else with an opinion on a valid topic of discussion) can keep things at an adult level.


Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:55 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron