Solemnity

2»

Comments

  • Corn_Noodles
    Corn_Noodles Posts: 477 Mover and Shaker
    Yeah, I tend to think of true cycling decks as #1 there, with semi-cycling at #2. I don't consider #3 to be a cycling-reliant deck and that's my preferred use for cycling.
  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,259 Chairperson of the Boards
    AresOmega said:
    Jace1. First ability. Floodwaters.

    Over/under on them fixing this in the update?
  • octal9
    octal9 Posts: 593 Critical Contributor
    madwren said:
    AresOmega said:
    Jace1. First ability. Floodwaters.

    Over/under on them fixing this in the update?
    not taking that bet; they're aware of the problem and it has a fairly simple solution
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker
    My cycling deck just lost 2 games in Trial of the Planes Green. I had to switch to a power deck. faced some powerful noncycling decks I don't think cycling is as powerful as people make it to be. Only 1 player in totp used cycling. I've been losing a lot of games and missed objectives in other standard events using cycle. I'm only missing drake.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    MADAFAKA said:
    I'm only missing drake.
    That's why.
  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    babar3355 said:

    We have concluded there are 4 types of decks in the meta:

    1. Cycling as a win condition - Draven, FotD, or really any quasi-infinitely looping deck even if it results in a giant GR stack.

    2. Cycling as a filter or screen - Anything that uses lots of cycling cards but rarely uses them for any reason other than to shrink the functional deck size.  So say Rishkars, New Perspectives, 2 creatures + monitor  and 5 other cycling cards. 

    3. Decks who splash some situational cycle cards with the intent of casting them in many scenarios - cards like the cycle lands, support destroyers, etc.

    4. Decks with 0 cycling cards.

    I draw the line of "cycling decks" and "non-cycling decks" between 2 and 3.  Splashing good cards that happen to have an added perk of cycling does not make it a cycling deck.  However, using 5 cards with little to no intent of ever casting them means the deck wouldn't work if cycling wasn't a mechanic.

    Regardless, 1 and 2 might both be cycling decks, but only one of them causes you to cycle 100's of cards.  So we can differentiate between 1 as a cycling deck and 2 as a semi-cycling deck.

    Problem solved... and what a great waste of time for me =)

    Not entirely wasted. Y'see, this poll here is indicates that the way most people see it, cycling does not need to be nerfed because playing with it is boring. That's only the case in #1, tho, isn't it?
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    shteev said:
    Not entirely wasted. Y'see, this poll here is indicates that the way most people see it, cycling does not need to be nerfed because playing with it is boring. That's only the case in #1, tho, isn't it?

    True.  But I actually have to adjust my #2 decks with some legacy cards in TotP (mostly to get immunity for my creatures), but then I figure prism array is a good card, and shrine would be more consistent.  Next thing I know I am pulling an inverse @shteev and playing with a #3 or #4 deck.

    Don't get me wrong, its a broken mechanic.  But when you pair it will all of the broken cards in legacy, its a little less broken.

Categories