All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

It makes just as much sense as 4C Loam given that name implies it’s a dedicated Loam deck (which it really isn’t)

---

Bullshit. Punishing Abzan, what the fuck is that?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobmans

Bullshit. Punishing Abzan, what the fuck is that?!

---

Well according to WOTC, Abzan is GBW which is apparently more recognizable than junk which new players struggle with but will know what abzan is because fuck you stop thinking about this.

How is it Abzan when it is red as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

Well according to WOTC, Abzan is GBW which is apparently more recognizable than junk which new players struggle with but will know what abzan is because fuck you stop thinking about this.

---

New players will struggle with it more if they call a FOUR Color deck a three Color specific name, especially when they start calling different archetypes the same way (Maverick and Zoo for example). It is more confusing then the original fucking names they give it here. Have you even seen Grixis control been called Bant???!!! Or ANT been called Doomsday while the fucking card ain't even in it????!!!!

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

It's Green Sun's Mardu, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobmans

New players will struggle with it more if they call a FOUR Color deck a three Color specific name, especially when they start calling different archetypes the same way (Maverick and Zoo for example). It is more confusing then the original fucking names they give it here. Have you even seen Grixis control been called Bant???!!! Or ANT been called Doomsday while the fucking card ain't even in it????!!!!

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

---

They called Nedleeds deck at EWeekend Ravager shops even though it didn't play ravager. So yeah there's some fairly egregiously poor nomenclature. Off-topic however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

How is it Abzan when it is red as well?

---

That’s what makes it punishing man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobmans

New players will struggle with it more if they call a FOUR Color deck a three Color specific name, especially when they start calling different archetypes the same way (Maverick and Zoo for example). It is more confusing then the original fucking names they give it here. Have you even seen Grixis control been called Bant???!!! Or ANT been called Doomsday while the fucking card ain't even in it????!!!!

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

---

You don’t remember when the days of dark Jeskai being commonly used do you?

Btw, I think you misunderstood me, I think the insistence of clan names being used (mostly at the expense RUG, BUG and Junk) is stupid as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

That’s what makes it punishing man

---

There are 7 other cards in magic's history with the word "punish" that are in "Abzan" colors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

It's Green Sun's Mardu, actually.

---

I thought it was dark naya.

*shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThomasDowd

I thought it was dark naya.

*shrug*

---

Wait, you mean it's not Light Jund? :eyebrow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H

Wait, you mean it's not Light Jund? :eyebrow:

---

Hey barkeep, two more Jund Lights' over here, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

The Lands in the T8 ran Chalice. Many builds of Lands do. DnT doesn't run Chalice itself, but an entire deck full of the same principle, including a creature that has the same effect. Elves - got me there, I didn't see it in the top 32, my bad. Maverick - that was the deck I was talking about. Turbo Depths and Reanimator both run the Blue Shell - cantrips and Force.

But yes, you're right, only 16 of the decks in the top 32 ran Blue Shell/Xerox + Delver, and another 10 or so ran the blue shell, with most of the rest packing chalice, but there were two whole decks with neither, so things are fine.

---

The top lands deck was in 10th and didn't include any Chalices. One of the three Lands decks ran Chalice as far as my memory goes, and even then it only had one in the side. The Depths deck didn't run blue at all, and the reanimator decks were both black/red. I believe one had green in it out of the side. Are we even talking about the same tournament?

Guys, guys, we're getting way off topic.

We all know that if it ran Brainstorm, 4c Aggro Punishing Abzan Loam Junk would be called High Tide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

The DC SCG Legacy Open had a T8 that was theoretically diverse, but can be broken down to 6 Xerox/Blue Shell, 2 Chalice.

Out of the top 32 decks I saw, exactly one didn't have either Xerox or Chalice in it.

---

Despite closer analysis fixing that number to 8 decks and not just 1 (facts are fun), the point is that Legacy is strategically diverse.

We see this even in just the top 8. If you think, eg, Miracles, Delver, and Storm are not collectively a diverse range of decks, maybe you ought to be sharing some of that patented Morgan brand Coke? Same with Eldarzi and Loam. These decks all attack the meta from different angles, have different strengths and weaknesses (and MUs), and are totally different from one another to play against. If you refuse to see that, it's on you bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

The Lands in the T8 ran Chalice. Many builds of Lands do.

---

Many Lands builds don't these days. But note how Lands is essentially the same deck with CotV or without. Exactly why we should be looking to strategic diversity rather than card diversity.

It's as though you think that Lands adds diversity to the format only if it doesn't run a copy of Chalice in the board. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I hope you can see how ridiculous that is.

Abzan? Pshaw. I still call it Rock.

I know that this idea has been proposed before but what do people think about banning rite of flame. I got to see first hand yesterday how strong this card was and imo it's a very bannable card. It was capable of producing 2 mana on the first, 3 on the 2nd, and so on.

The really oppressive card in that cycle is Rune Snag. It's a counterspell that gets better each time you play it!!1!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CptHaddock

I know that this idea has been proposed before but what do people think about banning rite of flame. I got to see first hand yesterday how strong this card was and imo it's a very bannable card. It was capable of producing 2 mana on the first, 3 on the 2nd, and so on.

---

Aren't decks using it like <2% of the meta?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CptHaddock

imo it's a very bannable card.

---

Given that I regularly play various Rituals and regularly lose games of Magic to people who don't, would you mind elaborating on this?

I've been assuming the Rite of Flame posts are mostly just jokes.