Thank goodness this is only allowed in the new format. That's exactly how all such games should operate: if you want complete and utter madness, just create a format where everything is allowed and see how many people actually want to play in such formats facing some strategies (like this one) so fast and OP that no matter how cool and fun your strategy is, if it doesn't add specific cards to counter other specific cards in the format, whatever you planned will work once every Blood Moon :) Me personally I'd never try such a format since I prefer being able to come up with interesting, well-thought (or just thought, actually) strategies that are meant for the longer game and the more than honorable "you vs me" type of brawls, and not the "I'll bully you by not even allowing you to resolve your spells (monoblue)/attack me with creatures (monored)/have (enough? Any at all?) cards in hand (any black colored deck centered around discard effects)" we unfortunately still see even in Standard...
@@Iamthe2G See, the second part of that comment is the kind of mindset I totally disagree with. Many of these "unfair decks" are just as well-thought strategies (if not more) than your average midrange beatdown deck, and require knowing your match-ups like the palm of your hand. And I'm saying this as someone who enjoys the most playing with creatures and running janky combos. Sure, it's not fun when an opponent locks you from playing. but without those strategies, the game would end up with a rather boring "who's got the biggest stick" style of gameplay dominated by green decks.
@@santiproductions9318 I don't know if you meant it like switching over to Pokémon (which I already play since gen 3, and competitively as of a couple years back) or just if I have seen how this formula is working in other such big games, but either way, Pokémon also had broken mons and moves all the way back in gen 1 like Hyper Beam (150 base power) not taking a turn to recharge after using it if it KOd the foe, which was exactly the reason why it was changed already in the next gen (2), or even the Special stat which was only a single stat and made things like Tauros or Articuno actually strong using special attacks and in the span of just one generation went from top tier to UU (under used) at most but mostly NU (never used) or lower once that stat was split in Special Attack and Special Defense. In the case of Pokémon, it was not originally intended to be a battle-centered game, so it is kind of reasonable to understand why these moves and stats were so broken in the beginning, but Game Freak still adjusted them to the battle scene in the following generations and tried to balance things out as the generations went on. Magic, on the other hand, was always intended to be a "battle" or match-based game in which there's always a minimum of two players, and the first cards ever printed were already broken to the point some of them are still banned today even from formats like Vintage and other formats where older cards are allowed. I never played Magic in those early days, but quite frankly, the Alchemy format just seems to be the same, if not worse, crazy metagame where there are impossible cascade effects, where tutoring cards was never easier with draft mechanic (Key to the Archive for instance), where puting extra cards in your deck out of thin air is possible and powerful ones at that (Oracle of the Alpha for instance), etc. My point here is, what's the fun in spending hundreds and thousands of dollars to buy cards and packs to come up with a strategy that requires a reasonable and respectable amount of turns and resources to set up, if there are cards that when combined together can make your opponent lose on turn 3? What's the point in wasting your time thinking of nice and cool strategies that require time only to lose to a guy on turn 4 max whose whole thing revolves around a bunch of 1-2 mana creatures with haste and absolutely unnecessary abilities like prowess or DOUBLE prowess alongside cheap burn spells and cantrips? So now I'm forced to use things like Temporary Lockdown, Brotherhood's End, Depopulate or just a full set of cheap removal spells to deal with all those more-than-acceptable fast aggro decks instead of other interesting cards with cool sinergies? I'm sorry, but that to me is restrictive and very easily preventable in various ways.
I just realized that half of why Blood Moon is so back-breaking is that there really isn't an answer for it that you can play off of only red mana. Since Red can't kill a blood moon, that actually makes it so the card protects itself by even bricking any potential *answers* to itself. Card is wild.
Oh yeah. Thing is in legacy where "moon stompy" is mostly played (that shit has trinispheres and ancient tombs and other lock pieces before hitting hard with something like rabble master) its balemced by the fact things like force of vigor or will can be pitched from hand without needing mana. Hell even just chrome moxes or petals can help. But timeless doesnt have most of that yet meaning insane enchanments like moon or even necropotence of all unholy things have very little outs.
Haven't decided yet. It feels like an arms race to be the first to post a draft guide, but I don't want the quality to suffer because of it. Even working one or two extra days on them can halve the number of views they might get.
I'll just say this, I don't care how long I have to wait, your draft guides are amazing. I know you are a bit beholden to views and business pressures, but just know that those video are absolutely quality gold
Adding my own two cents onto this, I think they would still be something special coming from you but I also particularly miss your limited content in general. @@LegenVD
Ye. Even without the guide part, I still enjoy the actual drafting section where you pick a card and explain your reasoning, as well as weighing other cards and future-proofing your picks.
I saw an AI generated card. It was an enchantment for 2W that said "Whenever an opponent casts a spell, counter it." If you think about it, that card is a worse Blood Moon
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2262">37:42</a> don't stone brain prime time, stone brain boseiju while you're at it, see if they have both snow-covered and regular forest in their deck; if they don't, you can follow up with the stone brain on that!
First of all, I like to say thank you. For all your content and amazing Deck-Ideas you come up with. I don't like basic creature decks and am more like playing decks with unusual wincons, like this one. I work on a no-attack/ pacifist-style brawl deck where your enemy/enemies can't attack you and you slowly drain them to death. Maybe an idea for one of your future builds?
...green... and land destruction and no beast within? - I suppose a 3/3 is problematic, but beast within is more land destruction (and can stop early game combo pieces) and cheaper than stone rain (yeah you could've beast-within-ed colossus hammer too... right?)
I love how there is an agreement among magic players that land destruction is evil, even though it's not even close to being as oppressive as half the things people find "fun" in the game.
Land destruction, along with stax, lockdown, and counterspell-based controls, are hated by player because they're simply "not letting you to play Magic the Gathering" An oppressive midrange deck is far better the above decks. Because at least you can still play your cards. Rather than outright denied to play any cards.
@@nurikhsan8821 the illusion of choice. It's like in blackjack, people get much saltier when their 20 gets cracked, even though they were never gonna win that hand.
It is getting very convoluted from the game I played 20 years ago. Every card is a page of text, even the lands. Average decks just lose turn 3, but I can't say it's not fun to occasionally play access denied decks when I'm feeling a bit cruel.
@@nurikhsan8821I always say it is more that a lot of players don't really know how to play against decks like that. If they completely lock you out of he game it is effectively the equivalent of them making an impossible to win against board state so it isn't really hugely different than if you could play your cards because you still lose.
@@moalboris239 there's a difference between a deck that kills you fast in 2-3 turns, and deck that lock you and win after 20+ turns. Just outright losing in 2-3 turns is more preferrable for people rather than keep fighting a grindy match without a chance to play anythings, then lose after 20+ turns. That's why a lot of people choose to concede fast against people with lockdown, control and whatever. Because if you really want to play by yourself, just do it in bed or toilet, not card game.
Theres much better options than this, but I'll always be sad that haphazard bombardment doesn't get a spot in land destruction decks anymore. It's always so fun when you've got 2+ on the board just randomly destroying things
Okay THIS deck is amazingly disgusting lmao! I can literally hear just how big you're grinning when you're talking about this deck hahaha I should have always known you were EVIL 😂😝 Appreciate all you do Luca!!! 😊
I was wondering if match 4 would have worked out better had you plus for mana rather than exile. You would have drawn the Karn and then would have been able to got the coating to start destroying lands again. With Chandra’s mana ability you would have been able to play Karn and kept mana up for your bolts to kill creatures like you did when your OP found white mana.
The problem was a BS alchemy perpetual effect. It feels bad when you mill a good card, but when you break it down logically it doesn’t matter what that card is
Oh he would have 100% won if he'd been able to cast the karn, but that's the balancing act of chandra, you don't know what you're going to exile. Sometimes it's just a mountain. I do think that he needed to commit to the beat down though. You either go hard on the damage and cast nothing off the chandra unless it deals more damage (like a minsc and boo) or you say "ok i'm the control deck, lets get the most cards as possible while we uptick". He kinda did both and lost the game for it.
@@Threadoflengthyeah, I totally get sticking to a single plan, but I have usually used the approach of up ticking for mana with Chandra after playing her for this exact reason. I never want you to exile something I could potentially play just because I am tapped out. Especially in a deck with a low curve, but maybe my line of thought is in correct. Definitely not an expert in this game, but just my two cents….lol
My main issue with timeless is that is has powerhouse cards but have yet to print actual good ways to stop them. Legacy or vintage has cards like force of will to stop your opponent from getying away with overly heinous shit. But this format straight allows you to play a full set of necropotences and there is not that many ways of actually removing it. "Moon stompy" is strong in legacy but there are far more outs to it than timeless has
What killed us in the 4th game was the chandra exile with no open mana, no matter how long I've been playing this game I've always hated to exile or mill my own cards, I know I should treat them as a resource but as a control player I had many games where it came down to a last couple of cards in the library. Chandra could've easily upticked with mana production and especially we had two bolts against their two creatures at that moment. So I count that 4th game as a win =)
Timeless is a fucking joke, bloodmoon in a bo1 format is about as cringe as it gets, nothing against LVD of course, this is much more a comment about arena in general.
I think the main problem is that timeless has cards in it like moon and necropotence (you can run 4??? Why???). But none of the interaction that formats like legacy or vintage like force of will or force of vigor to counterbalance it. And as you mentioned it not being a b03 format means even if vigor was in the format it would be a clunky card to play
