CB!'s FG Deck

[rawr]

I suggest that it is posted to the "False Gods Farming Deck Collection" thread that Cisco started. That's a good single thread for many similar decks and explanations for the personal tweaks.

Link is here http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,220.0.html (http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,220.0.html), to make things easier for all parties.

[jmizzle7]

Well, for one, if you hit the [page down] key once in my post, you will see that I edited the OP to include my latest version. I have gone through tons of variations on it over the past few months. That first version on my thread was the first one that I recorded wins with, so I posted it.

It's unnecessary to talk about why we chose which cards in this thread, as there has been lots of discussion already in many posts on this topic.

[CB!]

Good night, I almost wasn't even going to bother posting this because of all the 'Hey, that's to close to such and such deck, please delete this thread.' and 'Hey, if you take out such and such cards and add these cards, and change your mark to this, then you have my deck.' BS.

I did state that it was a variation of the standard entropy mark rainbow decks.  And it's probably most closely based off of jmizzle's deck (which is also close to vice123's 43 card deck).  In fact, I played his deck for a while, but found that I was hardly using FFQ and eternity, was losing too many games early on because of creature control, and wasn't getting elemental mastery as often.  So I changed a few things to fit the deck more to my play style.  It's stronger in creature control and gets elemental mastery more often than the other 40ish entropy rainbows decks, so I thought I'd post it.

Also, does the 'rawr / Scaredgirl trolling' argument have to be brought into every topic?

[Scaredgirl]

Good night, I almost wasn't even going to bother posting this because of all the 'Hey, that's to close to such and such deck, please delete this thread.' and 'Hey, if you take out such and such cards and add these cards, and change your mark to this, then you have my deck.' BS.

I did state that it was a variation of the standard entropy mark rainbow decks.  And it's probably most closely based off of jmizzle's deck (which is also close to vice123's 43 card deck).  In fact, I played his deck for a while, but found that I was hardly using FFQ and eternity, was losing too many games early on because of creature control, and wasn't getting elemental mastery as often.  So I changed a few things to fit the deck more to my play style.  It's stronger in creature control and gets elemental mastery more often than the other 40ish entropy rainbows decks, so I thought I'd post it.

Also, does the 'rawr / Scaredgirl trolling' arguments have to be brought into every topic?

Like I said, your motives, or how the deck performs are irrelevant. The fact is that this deck is almost identical to the ones that have already been posted, therefore it should be posted on those threads as a variation of the original. Otherwise I could take any deck out there, change 2 cards, and start a new thread about it.

For example you could post this in jmizzle7's thread as a variation of what he did. Or better yet, post it in that "False God Deck Collection" thread.

This is an easy issue to handle, so lets not make it a difficult one.

[SaumZ]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I am a 14 year veteren of playing Magic, and have played in many high scale tournaments and I know card games, theory, etc. very well.

It is hardly irrelevant for "just a 2 card change"

When playing vintage MTG, a lot of the desks are similar, but a 2 card difference can make the whole deck.

This is such a case.  The changes are not irrelevant when you are dealing with a small card selection pool and a small deck size.

The plays 2-3 turns in advance can be greatly different if you have a EE in play compared to Eternity for example.  You can potentially hold back on a few cards like firestorm, and benefit greatly with them, getting potentially a 4-5 for 1, when you could have gotten a 2-3 for 1 without the EE.  That is called virtual card advantage, and is critical to making the correct play.

So, just because a deck is very similar in looks, the playability of it can be drastically different when situations come up.

[CB!]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I am a 14 year veteren of playing Magic, and have played in many high scale tournaments and I know card games, theory, etc. very well.

It is hardly irrelevant for "just a 2 card change"

When playing vintage MTG, a lot of the desks are similar, but a 2 card difference can make the whole deck.

This is such a case.  The changes are not irrelevant when you are dealing with a small card selection pool and a small deck size.

The plays 2-3 turns in advance can be greatly different if you have a EE in play compared to Eternity for example.  You can potentially hold back on a few cards like firestorm, and benefit greatly with them, getting potentially a 4-5 for 1, when you could have gotten a 2-3 for 1 without the EE.  That is called virtual card advantage, and is critical to making the correct play.

So, just because a deck is very similar in looks, the playability of it can be drastically different when situations come up.

THANK YOU!!!!  That was my point the whole time, but you explained it a lot better than I did.

Honestly, I think some people (that will remain nameless) play so many drastically different decks that they can't see that a couple of cards can change the play style of a given deck.  They just see all the 'standard' rainbow cards (quantum pillar, bonewall, feral bond, etc.) and see the same deck, not realizing that a couple changes can fine tune strategies like what you mentioned (bolded) above.

[Scaredgirl]

THANK YOU!!!!  That was my point the whole time, but you explained it a lot better than I did.

Honestly, I think some people (that will remain nameless) play so many drastically different decks that they can't see that a couple of cards can change the play style of a given deck.  They just see all the 'standard' rainbow cards (quantum pillar, bonewall, feral bond, etc.) and see the same deck, not realizing that a couple changes can fine tune strategies like what you mentioned (bolded) above.

Don't thank him just yet. You and the other guy don't understand what I said earlier. The fact is that this deck is almost identical to the ones already made, therefore it doesn't need its own thread. Period.

Do you know why there is hardly any talk about the deck itself? That is because it this deck has already been done, and this thread brings nothing new to the table. If everyone posted their own versions of this same rainbow deck, this forum would be a mess and all the truly original ideas would be buried under hundreds of almost identical: "*insert name here* FG Deck" -threads.

This argument is pointless however, because while your thread would be deleted/merged in any other respectable forum, absolutely nothing is going to happen on this forum. I posted on this thread with the goal of keeping this forum from clogging up with useless threads (this is usually done by moderators). Unfortunately here that kind of behavior is considered "whining" or "trolling", so whatever.

As for you original post.. Yep, you took Ulitharid and Eagle's Eye. Um.. yeah.

*crickets*

[jmizzle7]

I think everybody is right, but there are two different points being argued.

Yes, taking a popular deck and tweaking it by a few cards does change the way it is played enough that it affects your decision making and can strengthen/weaken certain matchups, just like in any other CCG.

The problem we are faced with is if we were to apply a categorical imperative of sorts and universalize the practice of posting one's own version of the false god rainbow archetype, it would be impossible to sift through all of the different versions and would confuse many new players looking for a build. Threads like this that show a specific variant should note the differences from the norm, the strengths/weaknesses of those changes in different matchups against the false gods, and should belong to a parent thread or index that hosts any and all variants of the sort.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

I would have merged this with the other thread that rawr linked to, but the wording on how merging works is rather vague. It mentions something along the lines of reorganizing the posts in chronological order, and I'm not sure if that would reorganize any of the posts in the linked thread. If EH or someone else that knows how these things work could PM me (or post here, I guess), that'd be great (or EH could do it himself ).

[Scaredgirl]

I would have merged this with the other thread that rawr linked to, but the wording on how merging works is rather vague. It mentions something along the lines of reorganizing the posts in chronological order, and I'm not sure if that would reorganize any of the posts in the linked thread. If EH or someone else that knows how these things work could PM me (or post here, I guess), that'd be great (or EH could do it himself ).

You know there are tutorials for it, right? You might wanna look into that. If you are a moderator, it helps a lot when you actually know how use the moderation tools.

[CB!]

I would have merged this with the other thread that rawr linked to, but the wording on how merging works is rather vague. It mentions something along the lines of reorganizing the posts in chronological order, and I'm not sure if that would reorganize any of the posts in the linked thread. If EH or someone else that knows how these things work could PM me (or post here, I guess), that'd be great (or EH could do it himself ).

I'll just post the deck there, and you can delete/archive this thread.  And I guess everyone will be happy then....?  I do think we're confusing the purpose of a message board with a wiki, though.  A message board is for general discussion, and the important stuff gets stickied.  A wiki is a reference point.  The problem with having a thread to 'collect' a bunch of decks, is eventually the thread gets full of off topic comments and the such.  Let me know what you want me to do, Jelly.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Posting the deck in the collection thread might be the best option, so as not to include a lot of the other posts here that aren't particularly needed. It'd be great if the creator of the thread would go though and put all of the decks posted into the OP (pictures only, so if it's just a list, oh well, unless they really want to, lol). I could do it for them, too, with permission. Since I'm able to go into the "Modify" screen with any post, I can get the links to the pictures quicker than having to quote them, or host them yourself. o-o

And as for the merge thing, it's the only function I'm not familiar with, because I've never had a use for it until now.