The very fact that it is a land is a slight drawback. Imagine if it were a 1cc artifact. Then, you'd only be tying up one of your lands for one of theirs. Because it's a land, it ties up two of yours for 1 of theirs. Sounds pretty well balanced cost-wise to me.
There's just no way it's stronger than Strip Mine, allow me to explain below. With port: both your lands are used, you can't do anything except tap one of his lands.
He plays a land and can still cast something 1cc. That's disadvantage, you just gave away your turn, and he still got use out of his. With Strip Mine: You both lose one land, but are both able to still cast something 1cc.
But you don't lose a whole turn doing it. With port, you do. On your turn, yeah, he only has 1 mana. On his turn, he'll have 3 unless you use your port. Port: You use port and cast 1cc spell. Your opponent plays a cc spell. Sounds like your opponent is still ahead. Yes, you can now opt not to use the port, but that still puts you behind in the turn sequence, since you basically didn't get a second turn.
Strip: Once again, things are equal, and you're just hoping your deck can rely on a lower mana base than the opponents. No no! It's like half a timewalk for your opponent. He gets half his second turn, you get none of it.
And that's if you stop using it after turn 2. The longer you use the port, the more advantage you're giving your opponent. If you hadn't noticed, using ports takes twice as much of your resources as the opponent's! Sounds pretty fair to me. Yeah, because you went first and he hasn't had his turn yet! And he doesn't feel like he's had one, he feels like he's had 2 first turns, while you feel like you've only had one.
If it didn't tap for mana it would completely suck. And like I said above, if you make it an artifact, even one that costs 1 instead of 0, it would STILL be better than it is as a land. So then splinter is powerful because it stops Masticore?
So counterspell is broken because it can stop Time Walk and Memory Jar? Come on, that's worse than no reason at all. Very true. This is the main reason it is on the watch list. However, I seriously doubt they'll ban it. And it doesn't even make the game versus those decks. I've never had a port win me a game. Yeah, definitely. He's won many games for me No, it was just helpful. Second, it's really not that much stronger in multiples.
Yeah, with 3 lands and 3 ports, I can ties down 3 of your lands Is that a lot? Hell yeah. But you know what? You should have 3 other lands yourself by then, so you still get to cast stuff. Do you know how often I use port past turn 5 or so? Hardly ever. You know why? Because after that it's screwing me a lot more than it screws the opponent.
So should we ban all land destruction then? Yeah, if you're mana screwed, port hurts you more. You know what the solution to that is?
Don't get mana screwed. I play a green disruption deck similar to Bennie's, and you know what I love more than getting a port out turn 2? The opponent getting a port out turn 2. There's nothing I enjoy more than my opponent doing twice the work of my port. Tap two of your lands for one of mine? You just quadrupled the effectiveness of my port. As someone said, soon enough, people will start to realize port doesn't belong in some decks.
In fact, port doesn't belong in a lot of decks. The only reason it's in every deck now is because people aren't realizing that the port is actually working to help their opponent.
Any beatdown deck should not run ports. A blue control deck should not run ports. A black control deck may want ports, but I'm not sure if they're optimal. Cause all these decks are hurt by ports more than they gain from them. Beatdown decks need to maximize their mana each turn to race the opponent Port takes your mana curve and throws it out the window. Remember sligh? Remember the mana curve? Here's one sure fire way to test out if port is good for your deck. Take your first turn normally.
Ok, now take your second turn and throw it out the window. Take the third turn and pretend you're mana screwed and still only have one land If the answer is "it uses the two 1 drops to maximum efficiency while setting up for a very powerful 4th turn" then use the port.
If the answer is "it holds a bunch of stuff in hand, and then generally has an uneventful 4th turn" you probably shouldn't use ports. Ports are good in control decks that use board and mana manipulation to disrupt the opponent. Ports are good in decks that tend toward a slow game with gradual build up of power. If port were truly good in every deck, and the person who got the port out first generally won, then I'd agree that it is too strong.
However, port does not give you the game. And port is very bad in many decks. Give people a chance to see what decks port really should go in, and I think you'll find the number of them in winning decks going down. Nate Finch na You know, I admire this sentiment, but I have to come down on the other side of this.
Rishadan being a rare or not should really have no bearing on whether it should be banned. I mean card rarity as a way to balance the power of a card proved to be silly way back in the days of Unlimited. I'll agree that it's hardly "fair" to have a card so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards has been walking this road for several years; I'll even be so bold as to put my finger on the expansion that began this trend-- Tempest.
I mean, just look a little bit prior to Tempest and you find power cards sprinkled liberally in the common and uncommon slots. Visions especially brought some great power cards to all the rarity slots. Once the Tempest block came out, you began to see the "power" decks with higher and higher percentage of rares making up the deck. Perhaps this makes more business sense, but it's a kick in the teeth to Magic fans who don't have the resources to chase down the rares necessary to make a competitive deck.
The DCI isn't and shouldn't be in the business to determine whether a card is unfair because of its rarity and popularity; they should be in the business of trying to keep the Magic tournament scene vibrant and diverse, and to ban cards that threaten that. I don't see that the Port is unbalancing like those cards were. However, I do agree that Wizards needs to be more considerate of the gamers who don't have the unlimited resources to collect the huge amount of rares to build competitive decks.
The forum to address that is more feedback to Wizards; let them know you're getting tired of so many tournament level cards lurking in the rare slots, and so much dreck in the common and uncommons lots.
A true test of skill should be in looking at an individual card and determining it's worth as a tournament level card, not looking at it's rarity. Until then, I offer this advise to those Magic players with limited funds to spend on the game-- look to beatdown decks for lower-costed competitive decks.
Not too long ago, a competitive Sligh deck could be constructed at a fairly reasonable cost without too many rares; currently, green creature rush is much the same. However, if you're a combo or control player Well the usefuleness of the Port drops off quite rapidly after turn 4 or so until there is only one or two lands that would be worthy of the effort of tapping whereas the Ring maintains its usefullness all through the game.
However you are right re the Ring vs the Icy comment. I have to disagree with you there Steven, you are missing the speed with which BWG plays its disruption. There's a hell of a difference between Plowing on turn 7 and Plowing on turn 3 - even against a deck with a handfull of 1 drops.
I dont. Do you think it beat WW? It requires careful play and it requires thought regarding what to play and when - but these are all hallmarks of a good flexible deck ie it has options. The fact that it can play these options very quickly is the difference that makes it win. I assume you mean "if you made it an artifact and took away the mana producing ability" obviously, no one is going to dispute that turning it into a Mox would make it stronger , and I'm not sure that that's true.
Yes, as an artifact it would let you slow down your opponent while not slowing you down as much as the land version As it stands now, if a monocolour deck would only find the Port's ability useful as little as one in every four times it's drawn, it should still use Ports, as having four of your lands produce colourless is going to hurt you significantly less often than that.
And of course, most decks find the Port's ability useful more often than that. The artifact Port would only be played in decks where its ability forms a significant part of their strategy, which isn't many.
Why not? It doesn't hurt them to include it, and delaying the opponent's Wrath, Treachery, Masticore, whatever by one turn after you've dropped your load on turns will often win you a game. A blue control deck should not double the number of answers it has to the neomishras just by switching what lands it uses? Again, why not? I don't see that any of the decks you've listed fit this criterion. B The increased vulnerability to anti-nonbasic cards.
With Wasteland out of Type 2, I don't see this as a major issue. Wasteland should be the benchmark for non-color-specific lands, in that it was an extremely powerful card, that was available to everyone. In the sense that WOTC thought rarity would be a balancing factor for overly powerful cards, yes..
I count myself as one of those players who has access to any cards that they need and want being an adult is wonderful, that way It's hard to feel good about being skilled, when skill has nothing to do with it. And anybody is surprised that fewer and fewer kids want to learn magic? A great example of this is a spell like Sarcomancy, which doesn't do something totally game-changing or unusual the old standard for what should be rare , but it's a card that you definitely want in an aggressive black deck.
It's like making Black Knight rare. Making powerful cards rare makes a lot of sense if your goal is to sell as much of set X as possible. Power-rares hurt tournament play There is a distinction between banning overly powerful cards, and banning cards which are simply difficult to get, but it's worth noting, for example, that Starter product is not legal in Standard and it was intended to be, from everything I've read , because overseas markets don't have the same access that the US does this was the DCI's rationale, based on what I've read.
This is a roughly analogous example, but it makes it fairly clear that the DCI doesn't see its mission solely as resolving in-game issues with its lists. In the sense that you must play Deck X or else lose, you're right. In the sense that you must play card X or stand a much greater chance losing, I think it's comparable. As long as we're talking about a card that naturally restricts itself to a certain kind of deck or does something fairly narrow you know, the way rares were originally supposed to be I don't have a problem with it.
It's when it's a card that isn;t narrow, that anyone might want to play, and it's made rare, that I have a problem. Of course, even a beatdown deck would gain a lot from Ports It's the ability to throw in twists that makes them really fun at all, for many of us. You do have a point. I was assuming it was put in a deck to be used pretty consistantly through the beginning of the game.
Yes, if you put it in a deck that does not often want to use it, then it's better as a land. But in a deck that does use it often, it would be better as a 1cc artifact. This is a very interesting thought, and not something I had really considered. I guess you would have to weigh the drawback of it being colorless against the occasional usefulness.
You are right, in most mono-colored decks, ports would not be a very big hindrance. This assumes you don't have a lot of low cc spells with more than one colored mana in their casting cost. WW for example, might not want to run ports because lots of their spells cost WW well.. So if you don't have a lot of hard to splash cards, port might not be bad. However, that is assuming you are only running ports as your non-basics.
If you're also running cradles, a couple yavimaya hollows, and maybe a few treefolk villages So assume you know this, and take out some of the other non-basics for the ports..
The equation is not so simple now, is it? I don't pretend to know exactly which decks would benefit from port and which would not. But, my point is, it's not always as simple as saying "yes, port will be good in most mono-colored decks".
I don't know about that. Many decks would hurt themselves more than they'd hurt the opponent. For example, stompy vs. Without port, stompy drops many creatures in the first couple turns, and the blue player probably can only counter one.
With port, the stompy player gets to play far fewer spells, and the blue player simply sits back playing lands, happy to have the game going slower. I think it's a significant part of many deck's strategies. Green control, Wildfire, Ponza, all these decks destroy your lands, and being able to slow the game down until the LD can be cast is very helpful.
Would all the decks that now play with Port play with the artifact version? Definitely not. You're right there. But the ones that would, would find it even more useful than they do now. Usually, you're right. However, I have noticed the tendancy of people to use ports even when they aren't helping, which can really hurt your game. You're right that Masticore will lose you many more games, but port isn't totally devoid of that possibility either. I think an evolution similar to that which happened to Masticore players will happen to Port players.
Until that happens, some people will lose games to their own Ports. Perhaps, but many control decks are now running mana acceleration to let them drop those bombs earlier on. Plus, one of the biggest threats to beatdown these days doesn't cost , it costs 2. I'm talking about Powder Keg, of course. Because while you are stopping their man-lands, they'll cast something else, since you've just used up 2 mana to prevent them from attacking. Again, it is possible that the benefit of the late game protection versus animated lands is worth the drawback of not having that extra U early on, it just seems to me that with a blue deck, if you make it to the late game, you've probably won anyway.
Well, there seems to be a miscommunication here. I didn't mean decks were hurt just because the Port was on their decklist, but that there are decks that would be hurt if they used the Port. I can tell you that very few people I have seen that play Ports fail to use them. And yes, you are right, most decks won't be hurt just by including Port in the decklist, however, for many decks it also won't help them, because they will very often not use the Port at all.
In which case it might as well be a basic land, because at least then you can get colored mana out of it. That someone would be me ; And thanks for so eloquently explaining what was more of a gut feeling for me. Any beatdown. This is a pretty good thought. I often found that me and my opponent were fighting "port wars" to shut down each other's ports.
The difference in the fight, though, is that I had lots of cheap mana producers, so while I could afford the extra mana to dedicate to fighting the port wars, my opponent often could not. Excellent points, Nate. I also think you will find many folks stop playing Ports, or playing around them, by loosening and diversifying their mana supply. This pushes the game towards a slower-developing environment, which is something that's gonna feel like a welcome breath of fresh air.
The port is a great card, no doubt. But, like the Masticore feeding frenzy that eventually slowed to a slow boil, people are going to realize that, like Nate pointed out, the Port can hurt some decks by being in them. I wouldn't say BWGreen "relies" on opponent's not having a flexible deck, though it certainly pounces on those decks with a vengence. I chose the Plows and Creeps because they are never useless cards.
Even if my opponent has 10 land on the board, a Plow Under is still useful by setting my opponent back two draws. And what's your problem with Creep? Destroy the land of a mana-screwed opponent, trash a key enchantment or artifact. I mean, Creeps are just fantastic! Plows and Creeps may not absolutely wreck weenie decks like WW or Stompy, but they're useful. Just a quick correction sorry, Nigel , but I actually beat a control black deck in the tournament; I ID'd with the black beatdown deck, and never faced it in the top 8.
Black beatdown is a problem, but I haven't playtested enough against it to come up with a solid solution. Masticore can help. BWGreen has also got tons of card advantage engines to dig deeper into the deck; black beatdown does not. Sure, Negator Black can get the insane Ritual draws that will crush me, but then it would crush just about any deck with that kind of draw.
You have to rely on the card advantage engine to pull you through, by letting you draw your power cards quicker than he does. Green's got some tools to help in the matchup. The deck was surprisingly strong. It surprised me. It is chock full of utility, card advantage, and the potential for some explosive mana to drop multiple bombs.
I've tweaked the new version to drop the 2 Lyricists for 2 Llanowars to help with the early mana development, and the sideboard is constantly under flux, but if I had to play in a Type 2 tomorrow I'd play it without hesitation. Thanks for the support of BWGreen, Nigel! It's a great deck to play, and I wish Wizards had posted the deck before the 3rd week of States, so more people could have given it a try.
Don't buy into the Stompy hype! It's a one trick pony, folks! Later, Bennie. Why do people always forget about the Longbow Archers? Sounds undercosted to me. You both make 1cc drops. Port V. You do nothing, saving mana to tap a land. Opponent makes 1cc drop - if he has a 1cc instant, can cast it in response. Port: You cast either a 1 or 3cc spell. Opponent cast either a two or 3cc spell depending on use of port, obviously. Stripmine: Both cast 2cc spells. Lets add up those cards in you example With strip Both make 2 1cc drops, 1 2cc drop.
You have lost stripmine planned Opponent has lost one land of your choice unplanned With Port, not used t3 you - 1 1cc, 1 3cc. With port, port used t3 you - 2 1cc. I hope you can see that this is causing you to be down a few drops. Sure, you get to choose when to use it, and against some decks they will have to few 1cc drops to take advantage of these opportunities. But it is hardly better than stripmine.
Against a lot of decks, it seems hardly better than a basic land. Sure, you might be able to stop blue from countering at will - if you can survive the more or less two point powersink that is the rishidan port. Not tapping for mana as well? Gee, I suppose it should, given that it costs two mana to use it. Possibly; probably not. The current trend is towards a slower environment - if I have ten turns before you can kill me, exactly how important is my second turn drop given you're not making one either.
That's why there is a four card limit - two much anything is abusable. Not so much. Lets see - it's the sixth turn. You have three basic land, and two ports. You draw anotherone. Joyfully, you put it into play. Than you say 'yours'.
Your opponent begins their turn, and you tap three of their land in upkeep. They play another, and drop a three cc critter. Boy, are you trashing them or what? Rishadan Port is right behind Opposition and Masticore in the broken category. White and Blue cannot remove the Port. The port cannot be countered. It wrecks the mana-curve of every deck, especially when it is in a land destruction deck.
It picks and chooses the best target to use its ability on turn after turn. It is completely re-usable every turn. It's only drawback is that it ties up one other land's and its own mana-generation capabilities each turn. Only Red, Black, and Green can destroy lands. Most of green's LD capabilities are too expensive to cast with Port holding your mana back. The only way to beat Port is by using the deck that Port is the most often used within: LD. It forces the environment into land-heavy decks that don't include the big spells that are usually used in decks with that high of land ratios.
It makes expensive spells unplayable, while making you put more land on the table to play cheaper spells. It destroys the efficiency of multi- colored decks leading to a blander monochrome playing environment as if this hasn't already happened.
It's a rare that only the rich fanatics can afford to have four of. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was banned. Leon Workman check out www. About six minutes after I posted this, I thought, damn I forgot the Archers! I'd lose the Steadfast Gaurd in favor of three Longbows. I can't wait for this : Already I think we're seeing the effect port is having on the game. And control decks are mid to end game decks. This is great for the game. Is it all Port's doing? I'm not saying all the deck does is disrupt.
As with any control deck, it just uses it's disruption effects to slow the game and stunt their opponent's resources until it's in the late game where it's card advantage engines can give it too many threats and so many control elements to back those threats up that it just runs it's opponent over. This is most effective against decks which have few to no options on how they can play out their strategy. I think people are playing WW wrong.
Just like people play Green wrong right now. As BWG proved, a control variation is often better in the current environment than a pure beatdown version. Play out a few threats. If they try to neutralize them, stop them if you can, eliminating blockers or protecting your creatures from their stuff with Blessing, Disenchant War Tax, etc.
If you can't, either use the rebels to search for more threats, or just drop another or two. Try to keep them in their early game with 'Geddon and Port. Port's effect of limiting your own mana resources is less of a burden on you because your deck can be productive in the early game. I'm not saying BWG is a bad deck!
Sorry, I just had to say that. And if you're trying to play WW as a pure beatdown deck, well you're going to get beat like a red-headed stepchild. It doesn't have enough good one-drops, sturdy creatures, protection creatures, cheap creature pumpers remember Empyrial Armor?
Do me a favor, before you repy to this post. Seriously, build the deck I posted. Proxies, Apprentice, I don't care. Play it like a control deck. It can also provide you an evasion creature if you need one. Hell, throw in one of each other rebel so you can go rebel madness against a control deck to offset their card advantage engines. Expect Fat Green Beats? Crackdown stops those pretty cold. First Strikers like Ramosian Captain or the Archer I forgot to use instead of Steadfast Gaurd will really stop an attacking creature cold if it has a Rancor on it.
Hell, it'll stop most cold anyway. If a negator has to take it before it can deal it out, ouch. If you go with an enchantment heavy board, throw in a couple of Enlightened Tutors too. Side out creatures if you want, the deck is a control deck with creatures to be a clock, kind of like a necro deck with only a couple of Skirges. You can even side in Devout Witness to handle artifact heavy decks. The deck is certainly not a "one-trick pony. It's a mediocre maindeck, but it's got awesome sideboard material.
Once you've had some experience with the deck and have shifted your paradigm of what WW is and how WW can do things, let me know what you think of it, and what you'd reccommend as some changes. But when you see a decklist, don't just think of it in terms of "What archetype is this a permutation of" then assume the deck plays like that Archetype generally does. This deck is certainly not your same old WW. If anything, it's more like Jank. Relies was probably too strong a word.
Thrives might have been better. I have no problem with Creeping Mold, I love that card to death. One of the most versatile cards ever printed, I think it's recently been ousted from my "favorite flexible card" list by Cho-Manno's Blessing, but hey, I don't play Green much but you better believe I got my four creeps and I ain't tradin' 'em! Sarcomancy was very "narrow". Only a true Suicide-Black needed it.
It's totally different from the Port in narrowness and it's more narrow than the Knight] On the other hand we got Rancor in the Common slot and the all-mighty Albino Troll. They don't always get it wrong. Ask a player about Common Cause if you want an answer. Its a very narrow card and I don't think it has a real use.
But it is so unbroken Read: cheap that I could plaster my living room with it. It's their business. You can still play good decks with only a few Rares in them Mono-Green: 2 Might of Oaks, 2 Cradles and a lot of commons and uncommons.
If you insist on playing Squirrel-Prison, however, you have to dig deep into your pocket. That's the way it is, folks. But it's a ridiculous excuse to screw the Magic beginners again. Some of my Guru buddies bought starter and now they blame me for it: I still have no clue if they will get T2-legal; kids invested in them and now have a bunch of cards which will not form a basis for their later T2 carrer.
But they didn't ban Msati yet. And look how many deck have at least 2 Mastis in them. Sometimes another phatty might be a replacement. But in the end it's a sub-optimal variant to play Thorny instead of Mastercard. Wrong approach.
Putting a game-altering card in the common slot destroys a lot of the appeal of drafting and will reduce their profits. This might be a good test for rarity. Wizards always claim that they base their rarity decision mainly on the "is- it-game-altering? It doesn't change the rules, but it is restricted to a few beatdown decks. In these it is a powerful weapon See above. So go a different way. Look at the new Rares and trade for 4 copies of a promising one. Go build a deck around it.
Winckler Michael Excuse me? Porting a port is nice eot if they hit a basic source you need in main phase. I have lost a few where my green or red source was held hostage. Eot port can take them off hard casting force and cost them CA. It is also valuable for threatening a brainstorm lock when they have a fetch up because commiting a waste here can really hurt without your own recurrsion.
In a nontaxing strat it sucks. Tempo decks run on very low curve and having too many colorless sources prevents your delvers from ever hitting the field and can force more muligans to have a playable hand soley based on colors.
If you have a tempo-ish deck it would have to run basics. Last edited by snorlaxcom; at PM. Re: [SCD] Rishadan Port about : "When playing with it, do you find its a good idea to port your opponent only when you have extra mana or port them actively?
I'd say that i would port only if i have an advantage on the board, or if i'm going to do a mediocre play. On the play i would play the two drop. Vs lands, allways port the thespian stage, so your opponent has to combo off during his upkeep Death and taxes!! Play 4CB! Deck Formats Commander. View All Formats. Innistrad: Crimson Vow Commander. Innistrad: Crimson Vow. Jumpstart: Historic Horizons.
Community Content Community Hub. Game Tools Life Counter. Dual Land Guide. Land Ratio Calculator. Draw Odds Calculator.
Site Tools Collection Tracker. Other Resources Community Hub. Magic Printables. Quick links. Guest-only advertisements. Login or Register to hide these ads. A Guest-only Advertisement. Login or Register to hide this ad.
0コメント