Comments on: Argument http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/ Five hour breaks destroy your soul Sat, 19 May 2012 08:23:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: RadioactivePhoenix http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-998 RadioactivePhoenix Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:25:20 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-998 It's interesting to see the complete lack of blockers in many of the current decks. They just rely on WoG, or counters. I've won quite a few games with 1 drops, especially Mogg Sentry vs. U-based decks It’s interesting to see the complete lack of blockers in many of the current decks. They just rely on WoG, or counters.
I’ve won quite a few games with 1 drops, especially Mogg Sentry vs. U-based decks

]]> By: Sicopath http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-991 Sicopath Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:41:22 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-991 Removal does not defeat the purpose of aggro. Red removal is burn which serves as flat damage per card if removing other creatures is not a priority. Aggro decks without red need removal to get rid of blockers since they lack the reach that burn provides. In aggro vs aggro, the slower deck would be using removal on creatures since racing for damage is unwise. Removal does not defeat the purpose of aggro. Red removal is burn which serves as flat damage per card if removing other creatures is not a priority.
Aggro decks without red need removal to get rid of blockers since they lack the reach that burn provides.
In aggro vs aggro, the slower deck would be using removal on creatures since racing for damage is unwise.

]]> By: RadioactivePhoenix http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-984 RadioactivePhoenix Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:16:39 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-984 Balinor: *Cough* BURN *Cough* In mirror-matches it's all about Sideboarding. Balinor: *Cough* BURN *Cough*
In mirror-matches it’s all about Sideboarding.

]]> By: Balinor http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-965 Balinor Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:38:34 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-965 right but adding removal defeats the purpose of an aggro deck right but adding removal defeats the purpose of an aggro deck

]]> By: Sicopath http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-964 Sicopath Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:23:38 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-964 In aggro vs aggro, in the absence of dedicated aggro hosers, the deck with more and better removal would usually win. Hardly indicative of deck quality, as aggro isn't the only deck that exists. Hell, sealed deck is probably the way to go if you want an aggro contest and it's pretty amazing how much removal makes a difference there. In aggro vs aggro, in the absence of dedicated aggro hosers, the deck with more and better removal would usually win.

Hardly indicative of deck quality, as aggro isn’t the only deck that exists.

Hell, sealed deck is probably the way to go if you want an aggro contest and it’s pretty amazing how much removal makes a difference there.

]]> By: RadioactivePhoenix http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-952 RadioactivePhoenix Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:34:25 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-952 So Dragonstorm counts as aggro... yay. Actually Dragonstorm is combo So Dragonstorm counts as aggro… yay.
Actually Dragonstorm is combo

]]> By: Balinor http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-951 Balinor Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:31:50 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-951 That's a good point, what is consider aggro, one of the condition of aggro is it goes all out to deal as much damage as possible and to win as quickly as possible with no regards for anything else really. Dragonstrom is like that, in most cases with the expection of remand and gigadrowse, it doesn't care what the other person does and just tries to storm for 3+ to get in that turn kill That’s a good point, what is consider aggro, one of the condition of aggro is it goes all out to deal as much damage as possible and to win as quickly as possible with no regards for anything else really. Dragonstrom is like that, in most cases with the expection of remand and gigadrowse, it doesn’t care what the other person does and just tries to storm for 3+ to get in that turn kill

]]> By: RadioactivePhoenix http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-948 RadioactivePhoenix Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:10:24 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-948 Ok, i'll play Dragonstorm then Ok, i’ll play Dragonstorm then

]]> By: Balinor http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-942 Balinor Wed, 27 Dec 2006 04:14:57 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-942 I think condition of aggro is see if it can win in 12 turns or less (I say 12 turns because of some maneuvering the deck has to do sometimes) but the least amount of turns the better. Maybe vs other aggro decks isn\'t the key as the real test is how well it can handle control type decks. ie if it can beat it in 12 turns or less I think condition of aggro is see if it can win in 12 turns or less (I say 12 turns because of some maneuvering the deck has to do sometimes) but the least amount of turns the better. Maybe vs other aggro decks isn\’t the key as the real test is how well it can handle control type decks. ie if it can beat it in 12 turns or less

]]> By: RadioactivePhoenix http://www.plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-939 RadioactivePhoenix Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:14:42 +0000 http://plt1.com/463/argument/#comment-939 Jeremy: no Nephilim deck is pretty much the epitome of evasive beats, while WTF deck is the epitome of... wtf??? Jeremy: no
Nephilim deck is pretty much the epitome of evasive beats, while WTF deck is the epitome of… wtf???

]]>