Moderator: rezombad
That explains why people keep coming over for chicken nuggets
Why do they have to respect it? It's not doing - on its own - anything to affect the board or pressure your opponent. Infinite loyalty is meaningless if you're not ending the game with it. Outpost Seige does the same thing in terms of producing grinding card advantage, but it can't be attacked, doesn't discriminate against card types, but doesn't rebound and doesn't ultimate. I'm over simplifying because you keep the card with Narset and have to use it or lose it with Outpost Siege, but the comparison is kind of clear (especially with that list you posted).All I see is ignoring of the fact that regardless of current outcome, on future turns, your opponent has to respect the fact that you have an advantage generating walker on board that has infinite starting loyalty.
Isn't the inverse of this statement the definition of win-more, though? "I didn't draw the cards so I lost/I drew the cards so I won" and then all effects modifying that are either win less or win more.If you don't have the cards YOUR LOSING ANYWAYS. You're argument only makes sense in the context of your hand/deck is bad. If your opponent has narset and any reasonable hand, the narset is threatening. If they have narset and no hand, neither the card nor your opponent matters because you're goldfishing a punching bag.
No, winmore is the card only does something when your winning and when your neutral or behind, it's generally bad. Narset's actively good in a neutral board by virtue of being a PW since they generally give you a cards worth of value every turn. When you're behind, it depends on how much time/mana you have wether narsets still good or bad. She's generally gonna be bad when behind against aggressive decks and slow, but good against more midrangey and control decks. If you're opponents on a siege rhino strat for example, if they have just a rhino in play, you're actually fine playing narset since you're 50/50 or better to hit off it and if they don't have the downfall or another rhino, narset does good work to catch you back up since most abzan midrange decks win by snowballing CA in board advantage and narset can buy back CA to neutralize board advantage slowly but inevitably. If it's a deck with rabblemaster and seeker in play, then you have to use other cards before playing narset most likely unless your life totals high enough where you can gamble and/or don't have the requisite cards in hand to fight back. Even then, you have the chance to lucksack into value scenarios.Isn't the inverse of this statement the definition of win-more, though? "I didn't draw the cards so I lost/I drew the cards so I won" and then all effects modifying that are either win less or win more.If you don't have the cards YOUR LOSING ANYWAYS. You're argument only makes sense in the context of your hand/deck is bad. If your opponent has narset and any reasonable hand, the narset is threatening. If they have narset and no hand, neither the card nor your opponent matters because you're goldfishing a punching bag.
if your opponent is on all spells, like Sultai, Narset is a huge threat, no doubt. So does that mean she's an awesome sideboard card against such decks? Or do you keep her main as a limited Outpost Siege that occasionally makes your [SPELL] do its thing twice against decks that turn creatures sideways?
But how is that different in a way that is better than, say, Outpost Siege or Chandra +0? The former, they cannot attack it. The latter ... is probably a bad example because that 1 damage isn't particularly impressive vs. gaining loyalty and having the card to keep as needed (though this seems less the case in your sample deck vs. an archtypal UW control deck).No, winmore is the card only does something when your winning and when your neutral or behind, it's generally bad. Narset's actively good in a neutral board by virtue of being a PW since they generally give you a cards worth of value every turn. When you're behind, it depends on how much time/mana you have wether narsets still good or bad. She's generally gonna be bad when behind against aggressive decks and slow, but good against more midrangey and control decks. If you're opponents on a siege rhino strat for example, if they have just a rhino in play, you're actually fine playing narset since you're 50/50 or better to hit off it and if they don't have the downfall or another rhino, narset does good work to catch you back up since most abzan midrange decks win by snowballing CA in board advantage and narset can buy back CA to neutralize board advantage slowly but inevitably. If it's a deck with rabblemaster and seeker in play, then you have to use other cards before playing narset most likely unless your life totals high enough where you can gamble and/or don't have the requisite cards in hand to fight back. Even then, you have the chance to lucksack into value scenarios.
How am I providing a flawed perspective when the words you're saying to me are "Narset is good against decks you claim it is bad against because other cards in my deck that aren't Narset are good against cards in those decks"? That sounds like cards in your deck are well positioned against cards in Heroic, and Narset has no impact on that. That doesn't mean Narset is bad. It just sounds like it does absolutely nothing on its own to win the matchup beyond +1ing into a Lightning Strike, meaning it doesn't sound particularly great in that specific matchup. Which is fine, that's not what I'm saying about Narset or saying it needs to be. And as far as I can tell, that's not what Narset is or is supposed to be.In a deck like jeskai, narsets actually good against both aggressive and Controlling decks since jeskai has a ton of cheap burn to trade with the 2 drops letting you pull ahead later. I have no idea why you think this card is bad. You're saying words and making statements that make sense, but only from a flawed perspective. It's like you want every card to be jace the mindsculptor and do all the things all the time. All your examples generally ignore sequencing or over simply game states.
Unless your tokens have haste, you get 6 tokens over 2 turns, Elspeth makes 6 tokens over 2 turns, and you're at a stall that Elspeth eventually wins because she keeps making tokens barring outside interference from additional cards.3 tokens is also a lot more then 6. 3 tokens and a jeskai ascendancy get stonewalled by an Elspeth. 6 tokens and the same kill an Elspeth dead.
One thing you definitively get over the x-creature deck is that coin-toss for drawing a card, which is a definitive boon in that scenario and gives the Wrath + Rebound experience legs. It should be noted that neither you nor your opponent get to put creatures into play effectively and you're both drawing a card and gaining a land drop/playing non-creatures (which the Narset side of the board is favored with because of her ultimate, -2, and ability to draw more of than the other player).A wrath resets a board against x-creature deck, but if they paced there cards, they rebuild next turn. A rebounded wrath is a pseudo timewalk if they don't have haste creatures or PWs to play into. In fact a rebounded wrath is actually a perilous vault affect only you don't have to pay life equal to whatever power they have in play to get the timewalk out of them which is absurd.
Son, I want you to know that no matter what happens between your mother and me, it's all your fault.
Yes, you can ignore it if you have lethal on the board--it's not designed as a directly defensive card, but as a TEMPO card. Once it hits the field coming from a well-designed deck, one of two things happens--either you were in a position to kill them before the card hit and you do so, or your left facing a clock against a deck that's likely full of efficient answers that's going to soon outstrip your threats and bury you in CA.
I think we're essentially arguing over minutae as opposed to something worthwhile. I think the card will see some play but it's not very good, you think it's the foundation of archetypes and is very good. I wouldn't dein to call this card bad.Eh, I'm done arguing. You're convinced that the card is bad, but I gain nothing by trying to prove it to you otherwise and it's not like you play magic either way so I'm just wasting my time.
The card is good and accept it or don't, I lose nothing either way.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
