So......i guess it's worth 75 bucks....
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on May 13, 2014, 2:28 a.m. by GoofyFoot
The Event Deck was spoiled today. I have to say I'm utterly disappointed. paraphrasing a quote I saw, it looks like a deformed child of soul sisters and B/W tokens. it's technical value via TCG is ~270, but there is just nothing in there that makes me want to buy that. No deck wants 4 Windbrisk Heights anyways....
CouponCollector says... #2
I think that this deck is honestly meant to be an intro deck. Sure, there's a couple good cards in there like the sword, but as a whole, this isn't a deck to bring to an event.. Should have called it an intro deck, because you'll probably go 0-4 with this in tournaments. And I can't get over the fact that there's City of Brass in a 2 color deck.
May 13, 2014 4:23 p.m.
@Tiktacy: Bitterblossom is a terrible card? lol I pretty much stopped taking whatever you had to say seriously after that. I'm not sure what your LGS is like, but at mine, you'd be lucky to win a game with this deck.
The least they could've done with this deck is give us the right sword and a shock instead of City of Brass . It still wouldn't be a good deck, but it would justify the price and give new players a place to start.
May 13, 2014 4:36 p.m.
Personally, all I could have asked for was a Bitterblossom or two along with 2 heroes. I completely agree marsh flats shouldn't be added, but with this unstable land base and the lack of bombs(honestly there is very little with throwing under those 4 windbrisks) I can't see this selling very well.
May 13, 2014 5:53 p.m.
Rhinowarrior says... #6
Bitterblossom is not worth how much it is. Sure it has a nice effect but in reality, the reputation precedes the card itself. It is a bit overhyped.
May 13, 2014 8:52 p.m.
@Rhinowarrior completely agreed. But it does amazing work in a good BW tokens deck. In tokens it's almost as good as a Kiora emblem, especially once it has a few Intangible Virtue behind it.
@Tiktacy I'm sorry your meta is so terrible. I suggest aggro infect on the next modern night. Should ruin everyone.
May 13, 2014 9:21 p.m.
Dalektable says... #8
General agreement with GoofyFoot and Rhinowarrior about Bitterblossom . I think It is incredibly overhyped, and it's...okay in B/W Tokens. Eventually I'll drop about 100 dollars on a couple for my own B/W Tokens deck, but It's not on the top of my priority list.
May 13, 2014 9:25 p.m.
LordOfDispair says... #9
I can see why they would have a 200$ build selling for 75$ rather than a 900$ build selling for a price nobody would want to pay, but I have to say, they could have done a lot better than this. You can make a decent modern deck for 200$ and this sure isn't it.
May 13, 2014 10:45 p.m.
I don't see what everyone is complaining about. This deck is worth $75, and looks quite strong. The deck's price would soar if either of Bitterblossom or Marsh Flats were printed in it, and a singleton bitter is not very beneficial. Some BW tokens don't even use bitter. Whilst the lack of shock lands was disappointing, Marsh Flats would make this $100 and not add much to the actual purpose of the deck: a ready-made modern deck on a reasonable budget. Whilst a Hero of Bladehold would be nice, it's certainly not necessary, and this deck is well worth the $75 that it's going for.
May 14, 2014 2:47 a.m.
veritates1 says... #11
So as someone who has played standard and drafted for a year, I'm not familiar with Modern. The deck, to me, looks a little disjointed, but modifiable to be somewhat competitive.
I don't plan on entering Modern tournaments, winning, and becoming famous. I do want to play against my friends who have been playing for a decade and have accumulated a bunch of Modern cards.
Is there a more efficient way to get into Modern (keeping in mind I actually LIKE W/B) for my $75? (I have one preordered for MSRP, but I could cancel)
May 14, 2014 9:43 a.m.
For those of you who find joy in what you think is my own "ignorance" I would like to point a few things out to you.
First of all, bitterblossom hasn't been in a successful modern deck pretty much ever. It is a terrible card that offers shit tier effects in what is barely considered tempo. Faeries is a terrible modern deck that only beats certain combo decks. There is a reason they unbanned it. Zoo is also a terrible strategy, thats why they unbanned nactl so they could make it less embarassing. You don't honestly think wizards is going to unban any actually GOOD cards do you? Delver of Secrets Flip is a better card than both of those combined.
Second, B/W tokens is a very good deck for 75$. It will dominate any Zoo or Faeries deck, that's for fucking sure. What matters is who is behind the wheel of the deck. If you are bad at playing B/W tokens, you are going to do terrible. If you are okay with playing it, you are also probably going to do terrible. But if you are really really good, expect to do very well, because you are piloting a very potent strategy that a lot of people just aren't ready for.
The side board is shit, but the main deck itself is something that can and WILL get you wins. I've seen it, a metagame filled with affinity, pod, twin, storm, and Jund, B/W tokens regularly makes a star appearance. These aren't push-overs either, these are really good players. You just need to know how to play the deck right, thats what modern is all about.
May 14, 2014 10:20 a.m.
Bitterblossom has been banned for roughly 5 years. When you say it hasn't been in any successful decks - that's because it was banned close to moderns inception. So that's an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Saying it's a bad card is also stupid, we don't even need to go into that.
Zoo isn't a bad deck. It somewhat consistently places top 8 in events (just checked mtgtop8).
I have no idea where you're going with your last post except further into 'I have no idea what I'm talking about' territory. Most of the things you've said are categorically wrong.
May 14, 2014 12:14 p.m.
ChiefBell just one minor correction, Bitterblossom was banned right out of the gate. Faeries in standard, at the time, was dominating and wizards/dci were scared of what it would do in the format. So they banned it at it's inception.
"At the time of Modern's inception, the dominance of Faeries in Standard was at the front of our minds. Therefore, we took the conservative approach of including Bitterblossom in the initial banned list. After observing the evolution of the Modern format, we feel that it is of an appropriate power level to compete with the other powerful strategies in the format."
May 14, 2014 12:19 p.m.
shocked439 says... #15
The deck has potential. I am underwhelmed with it and questioning why I preordered so many of them.
I was thinking it would be like the born of the gods deck (I think it was this one, whichever had mono black) which you could buy four and have a top tier deck.
This was probably an unreasonable expectation. It still provides some of the base cards to build a deck. Sure these weren't the cards keeping me from getting into modern but I'm more inclined to build a deck or two thanks to this foundation.
It would've been great if a money card was included, but it doesn't change that this is a high value product and will be saving me some money in the long run.
May 14, 2014 12:55 p.m.
shocked439 says... #17
Maybe I should've said money land. Those two are money, probably less once these are released. But still.
I don't expect to be competitive with this but I do expect my friends and I to brew some variants with this foundation and have fun playing some modern games. We might even stumble on something and win a game or two!
May 14, 2014 1:21 p.m.
Bitterblossom will always be a bad modern card. That is not something that you can prove with any facts, as its not used in any deck that has been successful. Daily tournaments on MTGO d not count.
Zoo is a bad deck, but not as bad as faeries. Unless you are running a well put together Big Zoo Piloted by a very good Zoo player, then it makes the cut for Tier 2.
I feel like some people on here just don't understand the modern format, its kind of painful to listen to. "Bitterblossom a bad card!?!? WTFROFLFOUNTAIN NOOOOB." Its a very over rated card, it will shoot down in price as time goes on once people realize how bad it is.
May 14, 2014 3:44 p.m.
@Tiktacy: Bitterblossom for Modern isn't something exclusively limited to Faeries or Tokens. It's an attrition card. It's competing with Dark Confidant for the two-drop slot in B/G/x decks. That's been why it hasn't seen play in Legacy or Vintage. It's not because it's a bad card.
But I doubt you'll understand this, considering you're the guy who got off on attacking another poster for not having very many decks posted in their profile, when you yourself just have a bunch of decks you don't own on yours (like we can't just google them lmfao).
May 14, 2014 7:02 p.m.
Zoo regularly top 8s. It's respectable. Arguing about whether it's t1 or t2 is irrelevant. At the very least it does well and is therefore not a bad deck. You're delusional.
Bitterblossom is too new to have a solid place in the meta. It doesn't have to go in faeries. There are a few decks that could have it and others may not even exist yet.
You demonstrate a startling lack of understanding regarding deck design and choices and a severe lack of imagination. If you can't even understand why bitterblossom is a fantastic card in certain decks (regardless of how bad you think faeries is) then you don't know much about card design. But then maybe that was indicated when you said that wild nacatl was awful or whatever it was.
The thing is: you're just saying things but not thinking. That's an awful quality to have.
May 14, 2014 7:24 p.m.
Alright, I'll give a bit more detail in my response. Maybe I am being a bit too vague, my apologies.
So, I will start off with bitterblossom: What makes bitterblossom good is the ability to create a system of consistently streaming creatures that is difficult to deal with. In that sense, it is similar to a planeswalker. Each turn, it offers you a small benefit and continues to do so overtime, all while being difficult to handle.
However, there are several problems with it. First of all, it offers very little in terms of card tempo. It lets you block, and it lets you start dealing damage without having to worry about your opponents cards since you are likely controlling them with a variety of different methods(since black is sort of a control-color).
Now, I ask you, what does this do that delver of secrets can't do? I don't know about you, but I would have no issue with my opponent lightning bolting my delver, they lose a whole lightning bolt, I just lose my turn 1 play. Now, lets say they can't control bitterblossom, what does that give me? The ability to start dealing damage over the course of the game? What does a 1/1 flyer every turn give me in terms of tempo when I'm losing 1 life every turn to use it? Just let that bounce around for a minute.
Now, let me get a bit more into context. Your metagame is filled with decks that can counter, destroy, or force discarding of your bitterblossom before it maintains any value whatsoever. On top of that, your opponent can resolve a Birthing pod, or just straight up kill you the turn after it comes out. In these matchups that im talking about, what does bitterblossom really do for you? Against pod, they just pridemage that shit. Against storm, it does basically nothing for you. Against twin, they have things like electrolyze and insane amounts of tempo, generally leaving you pretty much just worse than you began, same goes for UR aggro(they just bolt you to death). Against Jund, they can just get rid of it with cards specifically MEANT to get rid of those types of threats and win using their superior card advantage with Dark confidants and such. Against affinity, they can swap damage(via instant equiping plating and ravagers) and kill you before bitterblossom has any effect. Against UWR control, they just beat you with bolts and helix while you fuck over your own life total, or just counter it like they do everything else.
In each of these situations, bitterblossom proves to give very little advantage, and the cards it eats up are generally not very threatening(dark confidant eats bolts and helix and path, those are much better cards than abrupt decay or qasali pridemage). Its just too slow, and offers too little of an advantage in a modern environment. In standard, it makes sense, but in modern, it just doesn't prove to be very good. Sure, a guy might come out with a good deck that uses it, but for now its just not very good.
May 15, 2014 3:46 p.m.
My argument for zoo is a bit less one sided. Unlike decks using Bitterblossom, Zoo has a very good strategy going for it. The main issue revolving around it has to do with its abilities compared to the other decks in the format. In terms of aggro, Affinity is just better and more consistent, it has more power behind it and is a lot less fragile. In terms of Big Zoo type builds, Pods ability to Tutor and Toolbox is just as powerful, more consistent, and all around better than Big Zoo(mostly because of its incredibly powerful sideboarding abilities).
I am sort of disheartened by it, personally. I like the idea of Zoo being a thing, but it just doesn't hold up to the other decks in the format.
Also, whoever is talking about me judging people based on the number of decks, please don't spreading silly rumors about me. I told someone that they werent very credible since the only deck they claim to own is some terrible, subpar quality mill deck that doesn't work for shit against Modern Metagame. It had nothing to do with the number of decks they own, I just happen to have a lot of Netdecks on my account for PUBLIC testing purposes. In otherwords, I'm trying to contribute to the modern community by making testing against metagame easier and more convenient for you, your welcome.
May 15, 2014 3:54 p.m.
I'm not really sure what to say, except that I think you're completely missing what Bitterblossom is actually used for. Yes it just gives a 1/1 flyer, and yes its only 1 per turn. But if you play B/U throw in something like Scion of Oona and you've got a bunch of 2/2 flyers. Or if you're playing a B/W something like Intangible Virtue . Or you could play a strict control build with Bitterblossom and a few Swords. There are all kinds of cards that can buff/take advantage of tokens. You don't just throw Bitterblossom into a random deck, you build around it. But to sit there and act like its somehow some terrible card is just dumb. You honestly sound like you either have some vendetta against the card, or else just haven't used it. It can be incredibly powerful when used correctly. So to sit there and rail against it to the degree that you are just reflects poorly on you.
May 15, 2014 4:01 p.m.
mathimus55 says... #24
So...uhh....what the hell just happened?!?!? An explosion of emotion it seems like
May 15, 2014 4:07 p.m.
kmcree: So, would you say Serra Ascendant is a good card? Because based on your logic, you would say yes because you can "build around it."
It doesn't matter if you can build around a card, if the decks that use them have no success in modern tournament besides MTGO, then you can't give any evidence stating that its a "good card."
Now, if a card is one of a kind and there are no other cards that can have a similar effect(like Young Pyromancer ) for an efficient cost, then there MIGHT be a case for it. But as it stands, Dark Confidant does everything bitterblossom can do, but WAAAAYYYY better.
May 15, 2014 7:47 p.m.
kmcree: So, would you say Serra Ascendant is a good card? Because based on your logic, you would say yes because you can "build around it."
It doesn't matter if you can build around a card, if the decks that use them have no success in modern tournament besides MTGO, then you can't give any evidence stating that its a "good card."
Now, if a card is one of a kind and there are no other cards that can have a similar effect(like Young Pyromancer ) for an efficient cost, then there MIGHT be a case for it. But as it stands, Dark Confidant does everything bitterblossom can do, but WAAAAYYYY better.
May 15, 2014 7:47 p.m.
What the hell are you talking about? Dark Confidant is a completely different card. Bob provides card draw, Blossom provides board presence. They are two VERY different things. And how can you really compare Blossom and Pyro? Pyro costs more and doesn't do anything on his own. You have to pour more resources into him, and the tokens he gives don't have flying. If you don't understand why those are big issues then I really can't help you. And to act like Serra Ascendant is the same is just ignorant. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so just stop. Bitterblossom is NOT a "terrible card". You're just wrong. So stop.
May 15, 2014 8:18 p.m.
Dalektable says... #29
I can't even tell If he's trolling or not. Either way, the argument going on on this thread is pointless.
May 15, 2014 9:34 p.m.
Ok, first off, stop saying ignorant things like "You obviously don't know what you are talking about." You are directly attacking my character without having anything to attack me with, it is just silly. I tell people they don't know what they are talking about when they say stupid things like "Dark Confidant is a bad card because it causes you to lose so much life." or if they are doing a personal attack.
Now, lets get to the actual facts instead of playing the "No YOUR stupid!" game that me and my younger sister played before we even knew what puberty was.
Young Pyromancer and Bitterblossom are actually incredibly similar, but the difference is that young pyromancer gives multiple tokens every turn, attacks for 2, and doesn't make you lose life. I just used dark confidant as my example because young pyromancer is so much faster and is used in different styles of decks than bitterblossom and confidant. Also, YP does not cost more to play than bitterblossom.
Now, let me try to explain to you how confidant is so much better than bitterblossom in every way:
Bitterblossom creates 1/1(or 2/2 if you are lucky) flying creatures every turn in exchange for 1 life. This is board presence.
Dark Confidant draws you more cards, IE creatures or control cards to spend your mana efficiently on AND has a nice body of 2/1. This is board presence, card advantage, tempo, an actually GOOD chump blocker, and a very powerful clock.
So, what would you rather have, a card that gives you a man land and a terminate to get rid of your opponents creatures and deal 2 damage to your opponent each turn, or some shit stained faerie fuck who ends up chump blocking for nothing and causes you to lose life.
Bob THE GREAT ONE, is SO much better than that herpies in a can that I can't even believe we are talking about this. Even in a faeries deck, dark confidant is probably better.
May 15, 2014 9:48 p.m.
I said you don't know what you're talking about because you clearly don't. You keep saying ridiculous things that pretty much every other person on this thread will agree are just dumb.
First of all, I NEVER said Blossom was better than Bob. What I said is they are DIFFERENT. One provides a board presence by generating tokens, while the other provides card advantage by giving you an extra draw. Yes, Bob is better, but there's no real reason to compare them because they are different cards that do different things in different decks. So to use a comparison to Bob to say that Blossom is a bad card is just really dumb. That's like saying Supreme Verdict is a bad card in Standard because its not as good as Sphinx's Revelation . It makes no sense.
If you want to continue to believe your delusional argument that Blossom is bad, go ahead. But you're wrong. I'm not going to sit here and argue anymore because it's obviously pointless.
May 15, 2014 11:21 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #32
when DRS was banned, this was my guess at what the replacement deck would be...
Phyrexian Obliterator and Courser of Kruphix ended up being what changed. ...I still feel Noble Hierarch and Bitterblossom could work.
Nothing will fill the shoes of Deathrite Shaman though. RIP
May 16, 2014 12:26 p.m.
mathimus55 says... #33
Why would you put Dark Confidant and Bitterblossom in the same deck? They're the same card essentially only bob is superior
May 16, 2014 4:24 p.m.
Wow. They're completely different. Like not even comparable. One gives you board presence for 'free ', one gives you card draw for 'free'. I've heard people describing card advantage as leading to board presence and thus equating the two. This is false - it assumes an abundance of mana. They are completely different cards.
May 16, 2014 4:42 p.m.
For example - bob may just draw you land or non creature spells. We cannot therefore equate draw to board presence.
May 16, 2014 4:46 p.m.
@mathimus55: Why would you put Abrupt Decay and Maelstrom Pulse in the same deck? They're the same card essentially only Abrupt Decay is superior.
Owai...derp.
May 16, 2014 5:50 p.m.
mathimus55 says... #37
Whatever, I refuse to admit a card is good if it dies to staples like Eye Gouge . That's why Mutavault is STRICTLY a worse card than Stalking Stones .
Let me clarify....
May 16, 2014 6:52 p.m.
This thread has become dildos. People aren't even talking about the bloody event deck anymore. Go argue about card viability in a different thread.
May 16, 2014 7:30 p.m.
I am having my doubts that any of you in this thread understand how to play magic at a professional level. In the same way that you guys might think someone is stupid for saying "Why are fetchlands so good? They cost life and just give you one color of your choice." I am equally offended by the ignorance of the bandwagon brigade in this thread. I am completely convinced that none of you actually understand why bitterblossom was banned to begin with, and you have contrived these crazy ideas as to why you think this was the case.
How many of you actually play at multiple Modern tournaments on a weekly basis? And how many of you have actually gotton top 8 at a professional REL setting? How many of you even know what Professional REL means?
Based on the decks that I have seen on your accounts, I'm guessing none of you have even come close to a Top 8 at that level.
ChiefBell and kmcree, you have absolutely zero credibility on this topic. Your decks on your account for modern are sub-par and I have my doubts you even own them. Instead of spouting garbage in hopes of seeming cool for jumping on the ban wagon, how about you go and do a little research and testing? Seriously, you are starting an argument when you don't even understand the topic well enough to back up your evidence and you just try to point out the same silly(and incorrect) information over and over in hopes of "winning."
If you have an interest in making a reasonable argument for the abilities of bitterblossom, I am totally willing to hear it. But you haven't given me anything that proves your point. All you have done is say things like "you are stupid so I'm not going to bother explaining anything" while I have made multiple attempts at explaining my argument in an easy to understand way.
May 16, 2014 7:52 p.m.
Almost all magic cards are alike in some way, even Sphinx's Revelation and Supreme Verdict . The main thing all good cards have in common is this: They all give you an advantage. Supreme verdict and sphinx are both meant to give you card advantage, but supreme verdict does it in a destructive way while sphinx does it in a constructive way. Lets say you cast supreme verdict and get rid of 4 creatures your opponent controls while you lose none, you just gained an advantage since 4 of his cards were lost while you only lost 1. Lets say you cast sphinx for 4, you gained 4 life and draw 4 cards in exchange for just 1 card, that is called card advantage.
Essentially, these 2 cards are used to fill different niches, but ultimately have the same goal.
Now, in the case of Bitterblossom and Dark Confidant , they also fulfill similar purposes(but unlike the above example, these are both constructive). Lets say 4 turns pass by after playing bitterblossom, you have 4 faeries and you were able to kill an Ajani Vengeant using these faeries. You have gained an advantage, because your opponent lost a card, while you still have multiple faeries and more on the way. Now, lets say you have a dark confidant in play for 3 turns, the extra cards you get are terminate, abrupt decay, and tarmogoyf. You use the 2 control cards to get rid of your opponents creatures and then cast tarmogoyf and attack each turn using dark confidant. You have now gained card advantage, as the 3 cards you got from dark confidant were essentially "free" depending on whether or not you drew a land off of it or not.
This is the basic principle of how magic is intended to be played at a professional level.
Most of the situations I gave were quite unlikely as they don't usually give you so much of an advantage, usually it is more like just gaining an advantage of 1 or 2 cards. However, bitterblossom in particular has the misfortune of sharing the same mana cost as one of the best cards in the game, the only example that was more like an average rather than a "best case scenario." dark confidant(AKA Bob The Great One). Because of this unfortunate coincidence, bitterblossom proves to be very bad in comparison, in the same way that Lightning Strike isn't very good in modern because Lightning Helix exists. Does this make sense now?
May 16, 2014 8:12 p.m.
Dalektable says... #41
Hm...there is a reason I haven't been using tappedout much lately, and it's because of threads that turn into this. I'm tired of seeing these cut throat arguments that are pointless. No one is even talking about the event deck anymore.
May 16, 2014 8:21 p.m.
Okay, back to the event deck. A singleton Bitterblossom or Marsh Flats wouldn't even add much to this deck-list. The whole point of bitter is to win in the long-run in an attrition war, where you get a free spurt of creatures. It's significantly better if you have multiples in the deck, and only including one would just mark up the price without adding much to the deck.
May 16, 2014 8:24 p.m.
mathimus55 says... #43
This threads continuance is the only reason work was tolerable today.
Tiktacy: earlier you were saying that Bitterblossom was a terrible card and has never been in a good modern deck etc. In your most most recent posts though you're now saying everyone doesn't understand why Bitterblossom was banned, which would imply you do. But why would wizards ban a card if it wasn't good?
May 16, 2014 8:28 p.m.
Mathimus, it was banned for precaution because of the success of faeries back when it was legal in standard. It never had a chance to prove to everyone how bad it actually was.
On a more on-topic note, I like the deck as it is and I think people should be happy with it. Its a nice little decklist, and Its a great place for people to start.
May 16, 2014 8:54 p.m.
@Tiktacy: You're a fucking moron. Weren't you just bitching on this exact thread because someone accused you of judging someone based on the decks on their profile? And now you're doing the same thing again? Congrats asshole. I actually do own that deck, thank you very much. And to say that the deck I own and play with is somehow a reflection of my knowledge of Magic is asinine, especially when its a variant of a relatively popular and competitive deck. You obviously don't know anything. You're a pompous arrogant douchebag who can't admit when he's wrong. I'm done with this thread. Have fun with your pissing contest.
May 16, 2014 9:15 p.m.
I don't have a competitive modern deck. That somehow means I can't tell the difference between card advantage and board advantage. K cool. Moving back to planet earth.
You made multiple ridiculous comments and multiple users called 'bollocks' on all of them. Just because you type some long paragraph about how you think I'm stupid and apparently you're some pro doesn't hide the fact that you were just wrong. Like objectively, factually wrong.
I really can't be bothered to go back and copy and paste your points, but let's go over this again.
You said zoo was a useless deck - wrong. This is a deck that regularly top 8s events, almost every week.
You said bitterblossom is a terrible card. It's actually pretty fantastic given the board advantage it gives you. Everyone can see that. Hence the price. Hence why people are trying to fit it into decks. Might be worse than bob - sure, I'll give you that. Terrible? Lol no. It gives a clear advantage every turn and has the makings of a fantastic card. Why do you think people were so excited when it was unbanned? Why do you think it's maintained price over time despite appearing in no decks as of yet? Because it's good. Because people want it.
You claimed that you could take this event deck to a tournament with a strong meta game and win. That is extremely unlikely. This deck has awful interaction with what? 4 paths and 2 hand disruption spells. It'll fold to most common archetypes - pod, twin, affinity. Not enough interaction, not enough tempo. Plus running 4x caves of koilos is damn stupid in modern. So another claim that was pretty balls. I mean, you've claimed that YOUVE seen it - but according to mtgtop8 (which takes results from all over the world) zoo (a deck that you claimed is shit) top 8s more than tokens (a deck you claimed was better). So again - you're factually wrong.
You claimed that bitterblossom hadn't been in any successful deck ever- this is because it's been banned for almost the entirety of moderns existence. This statement proved you had no idea about the format.
So you've made a bunch of claims. Multiple people have disproved them. I've checked the actual deck statistics and history of modern to back up my points. Yet we're the ones that are stupid? Hmm mm. ....
Also my favourite bit is how you shouted at someone for laughing about the decks you've posted and now you've done that to other people. You don't really know how to be successful do you?
You have no defensible position. You were objectively wrong about multiple things. Then this absurd comparison between bob and blossom came about which you tried to defend with this shaky 'all cards are similar because they give you an advantage' analogy which is like saying all food is the same because it keeps you alive - a pointless argument going over reductio ad absurdum.
May 16, 2014 9:35 p.m.
This argument actually got to me so I called one of my friends who plays at a professional rel (the same guy that got me into magic actually) because he's someone that really really knows what they're talking about.
Funnily enough he also agreed that zoo wasn't a trashy deck, that this deck list probably wouldn't be winning you any games at a high level, and that bitterblossom is a great card that unfortunately has no set niche as of yet. He also mentioned that comparing blossom to bob is overly reductive and stupid because they two very different things.
Take that as you will. Oh yeh, by the way 'probably don't even know what professional rel means'. No, I clearly don't.
May 16, 2014 9:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
I'll take this opportunity to remind people that I don't like seeing the forums smeared with dumb shit.
May 16, 2014 9:55 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #49
Another Epochalyptik quote goes on the wall.
Also, this may be flogging an already dead horse, but:
"Why would you put Dark Confidant and Bitterblossom in the same deck? They're the same card essentially only bob is superior"
Wut?
May 16, 2014 10 p.m.
Here's the thing with Blossom. While I do love it, it's one of those cards that's sort of doesn't work by its nature.
As a card that's stronger early in the game, you want to run a pretty high count. This means you're more likely to get them in the early game for max efficiency.
However, having multiple down can be detrimental to you. While everyone knows paying life for cards is great, if you aren't careful this much per turn can off you.
This means that for max efficiency, you want more. But drawing more reduces efficiency, because you won't want to play multiples.
There's no doubt that it's a strong card, but seeing as its currently just getting tacked onto other builds, it just can't cut it at the moment.
Tiktacy says... #1
Why are you people complaining? This is a really good deck for only paying 75$ for it. Bitterblossom is a terrible card, dark confidant alone is 75$, and marsh flats is a fetch land(which they are likely to be printing soon anyway). Those of you who are unhappy because these cards weren't included need to realize that those were unrealistic expectations.
This is a deck you can definitely take to a magic tournament with a strong metagame and win. How many of you actually go to competitive events anyway? My guess is not many. You might not get first every time, but for a deck that costs 75$, this is an amazing place to start. Spirits is a deck that really helps people understand the ins and outs of the modern format. Its a fantastic learning mechanism and its a deck I always recommend to players who are new to modern.
May 13, 2014 3:57 p.m.