Don't stress man, i think anyone would get annoyed with the amount of backseating that was happening plus chat having baby tantrums about you not playing bo3. If you ever do another magic stream honestly just perma ban these people. They make stream environment not fun and i doubt these people are even regular viewers
you were winning, glissa prevents attacks, just start drawing a replaying dread knight, next game you needed to play bat 1st, knowing their hand gives ya a ton of advantage
@rarran it’s super cool watching your understanding evolve in real time and I’m learning a ton watching it. It’s easy to get less vigilant with always maximizing value, and these streams are really showing me just how important sequencing is and all the games that coulda gone differently with better/worse decision making
Honestly, while I sort of understand your frustration, the same thing can be said about most card games, even Hearthstone. There were many times when I would play against annoying decks all the time like good ol rez priest, there are always going to be annoying meta's. I know it's been mentioned, but for me BO3 saved the game for me, cause there niche decks that rely on luck won't win you the game, so having your opp topdecking and winning isn't as frustrating as you have at least one more much against them, plus you get to pick some counters from your side deck. The issue with BO3 is that you are now limited to cards you have so I don't know if it will actually help you. Keep in mind though that winning in a BO3 counts as 2 wins as long as you win both and not as 1. Now for the other part of MTG, due to it's bad economy as you mention, I find Historic much better as it the equivalent of Wild Hearthstone, so for me I don't even bother with standard. Though again the issue there is that you don't have many options currently as you are new, plus in Historic I don't recommend BO1 at all cause all you'll go against are lifelink decks and elves. I know you set this challenge but if it makes you hate the game then I don't see a reason for you committing to it. I know the backsitting gets to you as well understandably which ruins the overall experience, so if this continues I say leave it as is. Magic was intended as a tabletop game after all, plus you get the chance to punch your Blue opponents in the face unlike in Arena.
Keep it up Rarran. As someone that started playing BO1 Alchemy casually 3 weeks ago, the things I've learned is, to build consistent decks so 4 copies of everything (except maybe your mana base), learn how to optimise your curve (so i play a Blue/black/red midrange heist deck and i learned that i need cheap removal to get to midgame lol), and finally learn the metagame so remember what cards the enemy plays that are a problem and save your removal for them, also the only health that matters is the last one. Ohh and also always mulligan as if your playing against mono red, or its a free loss, ive mulled down to 4 and still bet mono-red lol
I don't blame you for getting frustrated, bud. Bo1 can be supremely frustrating, since it expects you to metagame in the first game, and agency is low. What makes Magic fun and different from other card games - in my opinion, at least - is its high agency. As Magic has gotten faster (or in time periods where interaction has been not good enough), this can feel very bad, especially with the quirks of the mana system as a balancing feature. I have watched a couple of your Magic streams, and it looked like you were having more fun with the Golgari Midrange deck even though you were struggling with it and making mistakes. The amount of decision points you have to make in a game will increase the speed at which you learn. In my opinion, it might be more productive to flounder and misplay with a deck that has high agency (such as a midrange deck), since you will learn a lot more in the average game. In many of these games watching you play the rabbit deck, I could see you struggle to see what you could have done differently with the current construction of the deck. You appeared visibly unhappy because it seemed like you were faced with only bad choices. Personally, I don't enjoy playing aggro (at least in non-eternal formats) for this reason. I'd rather lose to my own mistakes than be at the mercy of luck, since then I always have something to reflect on and improve for next time. As in life, the best way to learn in Magic is to fail WHILE understanding the reason that you failed. I think challenging yourself with a deck with a lot of decision points will be the fastest (and most enjoyable) way to learn. Chat may make fun of you if you misplay, but Magic is a complicated game where most every play is debatable and the line you're envisioning may be different from what chat is seeing. I certainly hope that chat is there to watch you have fun as a person whose company they enjoy and not to play perfectly, so why not lean into that? Play what makes you feel like you're learning the most, and you'll probably have the most fun along the way.
Hi. I'm the guy who left the "massive punt" message at 49:18. First off, I do want to apologize. I thought you asked if there was anything you could have done to have won the game, so I answered based on what I heard, but re watching the vod I clearly just backseated unsolicited, which is not what I wanted to do in a stream series that was already backseating hell. That being said, I do also want to explain why convoking the knight was the correct play in that game in a bit more detail, just to make point I was trying to make clear. If you don't care, feel free to ignore the rest of this comment and just accept the apology. Knight-Errant can be paid for by convoking a number of creatures and a number of lands. This means you can pay its entire cost through convoke, or just some of the cost through convoke and the rest with lands. You had 6 lands in play when you played the knight. This means you could convoke the knight with 3 creatures, tap two lands, and play out the knight to get two creatures with mana value 3 or less to your hand. You could then tap the remaining 4 lands to play some number of the creatures from your hand, which would likely be two creatures, presuming you were able to get some combination of creatures that cost less than 4 mana total off the knight. You then would've passed the turn with the same number of blockers, but a far more developed board that would've allowed a much larger attack on the next turn, either allowing you to force through your own win, or forcing your opponent to block with more creatures, preventing them from having lethal on you on the turn after next.
Not just that. Even if he ends up unable to play any more minions because he's unlucky and doesn't hit anything with the Knight, the opponent only had 4 non-flying units on board vs Rarran's 7. Lack of blockers really wasn't the issue, and the opponent's minions were mostly 1 or 2 attack, meaning he wouldn't even have to block everything to survive. He seems to have overlooked how massively scary his own board was and that his opponent was even more in the position of "If I attack, I just lose". In this particular situation, he would have hit the Jackpot with the Evangelist since it comes with a massive 4/4 flying blocker, which is exactly what he needed to shut down the enemy's only current path to victory. On top of that, if it's still not enough, he gets to chain scry to make sure he hits a minion every single turn. Even without Evangelist, any 2 creatures he plays are massively scary with the Questcallers on board. He was very close to having lethal on board. Mentor was also among the candidates, which would have been at least an 10/10 with trample. Even something simple like Pawpatch Recruit would have been a 5/4 that comes with a 4/4 token, both of whom have trample. Basically, there are a ton of combinations he could have hit with the Knight that would have likely won him the game (including the one he did hit). "Massive punt" was probably too aggressive in terms of its phrasing, because he is new to the game, and everyone makes mistakes. But it did lose him the game that he likely would have won. I think CGB coaching him is what he needs right now because he doesn't seem to realize how many misplays he's still making, and chat isn't really a good avenue of explaining these nuances.
@@Louigi36 Agree with all of this. "Massive Punt" was probably a bit too aggressive a phrase on my end, even if it is technically correct. I wasn't familiar with Rarran's decklist, and I didn't want to go too deep into the math, so I didn't see all the nuances and lines of play you got into here. You definitely did a good job of summarizing all the implications this play could have though.
Trying not to just give unwanted solutions or overly imply my answers to these questions: - why are there three (or even four) Oakhollow Villages in that Rabbit deck? What is it's best use case, what's is it's usual use case, do you want to see more than one in a game? - what's the highest mana cost in that Rabbit deck? How many cards does it draw, how much filtering can it do (like scrying or surveiling)? How important is it, once you've hit three lands, to see non-land cards? - what is the Rabbit deck's plan against mono-Red? Mono-Red is annoying as hell, but it is a staple of B01 Arena, has been for a long time, likely will continue to be so. Can you kill it before it kills you? Can you in some way stop it from beating you before you can build up a stronger board and finish them off? - is the value of trading off creatures (whether attacking or blocking) worth the potential value of keeping the creature around? (no this doesn't have a definitive answer lol - but I tell you what, it most certainly will have different answers to comparable situations in Hearthstone) (and if you want context, I'm referring to attacking with your 2/2 Burrowguard Mentor - a card that will grow much larger and will force them to answer it - when they can block it with a 2/2 lizard dude that already did the thing it's in the deck for) - conversely, what is the value of destroying a creature with a spell vs keeping the spell to use later? (also obviously not definitive, lol) - while your hand may have a particular curve-out, given the plethora of removal and hand disruption available in Magic even in Standard, do you have a plan for if your curve-out is disrupted? - continuing that line of thought, given most opponents will have some type of removal available, is it sensible to assume that your first couple of plays will stick around? If those plays are crucial for how the rest of the game plays out, is this deck actually all that viable? - ok, I can't help, on the very off chance you actually read this - DO YOU NOT WANT YOUR MOSSWOOD DEADKNIGHT TO DIE? THAT'S HIS WHOLE THING, RARRAN, HE WANTS TO DIE! HE'LL COME BACK! HE'LL GET YOU MORE CARDS WHILE HE DOES SO! LET THE KNIGHT DIE RARRAN!
Looking forward to the CGB collab! I think it's gonna be good to have someone actually coaching instead of chat shouting half solid advice, half nonsense.
Its good to see your understanding of magic evolve. Best advice is can offer is to play BO3 and just keep playing. You will get better just by being exposed to more decks and cards and can strategize around what they might have.
Yes he is right, playing with sideboard is way more balance and it will help you with decks interactions deep comprehension faster. 1vs1 Magic gameplay is build to be played in best of 3.
40:40 Technically you can kill Glissa by quadriple blocking but it is a very desparate play and you lose 3 creatures for a single glissa. Also that assumes the opponent attacks at all with her. Usually Glissa is either removal target or you can trade it with a first strike creature of your own.
You don't block Glissa, you _attack_ Glissa. Since the bats were trading 2 points every turn, the only option after that point is to rush Glissa or lose to the life gain. Deathtouch is scary, First Strike DT is even worse, but it's a losing gamestate and it's only going to get worse if you refuse to attack.
Tough luck Rarran but you are getting better at understanding the game. I feel for you with this deck though because it's kind of draft chaff, I don't think it's very good, I mean on it's own it could be fine but it dies hard to the meta.
The mana system is pretty bad however WoC have given relatively good ways to mitigate it by having fetch lands,scry/survail lands,creature lands, other consistency cards like creatures that draw you land, spells that do that or scry or draw. But the descision for this mana system imo could be to balance color mixing while still making it possible. In hearthstone for example the mana system is grear but you cant combine two or more classes' cards. For me at least as long as WoC release lands that help you not flood as much I'm relatively fine with the mana system
The balanced form of color mixing _is_ the form Magic has now. Players using multiple colors are taxed by the opportunity cost of being able to cast their spells. WUBRG (all 5 colors), while really bad in Standard, is the king of Commander as slow games mean WUBRG gets to cast the best each color has to offer. The drawback is that every good WUBRG deck looks the same. Tapped lands and colored mana are a brilliantly designed way to make splicing different archetypes together, possible and balanced.
And to addend, the same idea flies not just for mono or multi colored mana, but also for Lands vs. Nonlands, as a proper balance is required to cast spells there, as well.
In one of the last games, you had go for the throat at beginning of combat and then he'd just have 2 1/1s the next turn get glissa down and you have 2 blockers for the squee in his had and 3 goblins so you go to 1 but he wouldn't attack because that would run him out of everything, you had some time to get some draws, like I don't think it was likely to win but it wasn't over could have went your way
The land system is the core of Magic. Firstly, it's a flavor thing. Secondly, it gates playing certain cards together - like, say Hearthstones classes - but with flexibility to still let you do it, it just may not be an effective or consistent deck. Thirdly, it creates pacing. There's a reason Hearthstone uses mana crystals. Buuut, it also provides variation to the pacing. To continue with that, fourthly, it creates tension - and this is really important. It lets you keep that two-lander when your five non-lands are straight gas but boooooy you hope you get that third land on curve. It lets me keep a five lander in the final game of a Bloomburrow draft when one of the cards is the Boooaaarrr (5/5 trample reach haste pig of doom) and I know if I get that down, the game is probably mine. (but actually, lets unpack that, because it's also a good example of deck-building tension and how that informs what hands you keep and how you play the deck. I had 15 lands in that deck, but it wasn't a low-curve deck; I had managed to draft five (5!) creatures that could produce mana, so I could comfortably run less lands than the 'recommended' 17 for a 40 card deck (and three colors, for that matter). So, I knew with 1/3 of all my lands in hand already, I was far more likely to draw non-lands that I needed. And I did win the game - I did get the boar down, and I enchanted it with an aura that gives +1/+1 to make it a 6/6, instead of buffing a smaller creature, just in case my opponent drew their Dragonhawk that won game 2 for them. And they did! But could not attack with it on their next turn because of my boar. At the end of that turn I cast a discard one - draw two spell, discarding a land, and DREW TWO FREAKIN LANDS, which felt pretty bad. And then on my turn, I drew MY OWN DRAGONHAWK, which felt fuckin incredible. Again, tension is important and the land system is a big part of it in Magic) Anyway lastly, the lands being actual game pieces is probably the most important bit. You can, eg, discard them to spells that let you draw more cards but make you discard before or after doing so. You can sacrifice them to various effects to do things (like drawing cards! or other things, look up the recently-rotated Temur Analyst deck). You can use lands with abilities so you don't mind so much when you have lots - like creature lands, I love creature lands! You can play some blue-green desert lands (I liked to do this with black-green too, I love Golgari and all of it's three color variants lol) that deal 1 damage to opponent when they enter, eventually cast Doppelgang for a lot and make a bunch of copies of your deserts, dealing a bunch more damage and getting you a bunch more mana (and you can combo this with Spelunking... but you can figure that one out ;) )
Mtg can be hella tilting, lands in draft are probs the most tilting for me personally, also look into whats meta if your trying to grind later tbh, i think lizards might be better atm and cheap
I think your GW rabbit deck needs more interaction. It could be in form of a couple Get Lost or the enchantment Case of the Gateway Express. This enchantment can do damage to any creature equal to the number of creatures that you control. Plus it can also give your creatures a power boost after you attack with 3 or more creatures. This options with clear the board a bit for you to attack or at least remove some big threats.
Rabbits is too weak against any boardwipes in my opinion. Just a single lockdown or sunfall and you pretty much lost, it's hard to build a good board again or to finish the game cause you don't have haste creatures or direct burn. But anyway, I enjoy your mtg streams, ty.
Platinum is probably the most difficult one to get through. Everyone can get to Platinum since before that you get 2 points / win so the pool of players is the biggest. It also means you can get complete newbies and then you have 20-year veterans with unlimited budget and everything in between. Also a lot of players are playing the most insane aggro decks etc. For some reason I haven't seen as many aggro decks or stupid gimmick decks in Diamond compared to Platinum. Standard BO1 ranked is probably the most cancerous format in MTG arena. Well, after Alchemy. Also WotC are just dumb by not giving proper lands for Standard. Richard Garfield actually gave proper dual lands, for example, when he made the game because he knew the land system was shit. For some reason WotC doesn't want to give proper dual lands.
I know BO1 is better to watch and you are resistant to this idea but I think you should consider BO3 off-stream at least. The format is slower and less swingy because decks can't go as all-in. More decision points that actually matter, less face rolls.
The land hate is real. Its the new player exp. Land isnt the problem its the result of a bad deck. To much land and low draw results in top decking moments where drawing a land is just super negative. Raran is palying super good he just given a shitty white/green pre made deck
Half the trouble is he was playing the green/black combo deck which wants 5-6 lands and yet complaining at 2:00:40 when drawing a fith land to pump the lifelinker was exactly what was needed, as mono red can't deal with big creatures and also sets up for the combo. Rarran does see the lines to lethal and was doing well in that draft with the lizards, I enjoy watching someone learn MTG (or play a Soulsgame for the first time) so I hope he gets some good tips on the fundamentals from CGB and maybe some youtube videos. Personally I never play white or white/green aggro because though they can really snowball, there's not much room for removal and as the chat said, aggro runs out of steam fast. I tend to play green, black or both with around 8-9 instant removal.
Ok after watching this has nothing to do with Rarran. That rabbit deck is just garbage. No interaction and just kinda slow for aggro and no card draw. Like Rarran is fighting nukes with a coughing baby.
This game is tilting, I’m sorry for being annoyed
Don't stress man, i think anyone would get annoyed with the amount of backseating that was happening plus chat having baby tantrums about you not playing bo3.
If you ever do another magic stream honestly just perma ban these people. They make stream environment not fun and i doubt these people are even regular viewers
all good, understandable tbo lol
you were winning, glissa prevents attacks, just start drawing a replaying dread knight, next game you needed to play bat 1st, knowing their hand gives ya a ton of advantage
It's cathartic to know I'm not alone in getting annoyed
It's okay Bo3 over matchmaking is cringe.
It is very interesting to watch your understanding evolve in real time. If you keep at it, you will look back on these and laugh eventually.
@rarran it’s super cool watching your understanding evolve in real time and I’m learning a ton watching it. It’s easy to get less vigilant with always maximizing value, and these streams are really showing me just how important sequencing is and all the games that coulda gone differently with better/worse decision making
Keep at it Rarran, magic takes awhile to get a full comprehension of. You're doing great man
Honestly, while I sort of understand your frustration, the same thing can be said about most card games, even Hearthstone. There were many times when I would play against annoying decks all the time like good ol rez priest, there are always going to be annoying meta's. I know it's been mentioned, but for me BO3 saved the game for me, cause there niche decks that rely on luck won't win you the game, so having your opp topdecking and winning isn't as frustrating as you have at least one more much against them, plus you get to pick some counters from your side deck. The issue with BO3 is that you are now limited to cards you have so I don't know if it will actually help you. Keep in mind though that winning in a BO3 counts as 2 wins as long as you win both and not as 1.
Now for the other part of MTG, due to it's bad economy as you mention, I find Historic much better as it the equivalent of Wild Hearthstone, so for me I don't even bother with standard. Though again the issue there is that you don't have many options currently as you are new, plus in Historic I don't recommend BO1 at all cause all you'll go against are lifelink decks and elves.
I know you set this challenge but if it makes you hate the game then I don't see a reason for you committing to it. I know the backsitting gets to you as well understandably which ruins the overall experience, so if this continues I say leave it as is. Magic was intended as a tabletop game after all, plus you get the chance to punch your Blue opponents in the face unlike in Arena.
Keep it up Rarran.
As someone that started playing BO1 Alchemy casually 3 weeks ago, the things I've learned is, to build consistent decks so 4 copies of everything (except maybe your mana base), learn how to optimise your curve (so i play a Blue/black/red midrange heist deck and i learned that i need cheap removal to get to midgame lol), and finally learn the metagame so remember what cards the enemy plays that are a problem and save your removal for them, also the only health that matters is the last one.
Ohh and also always mulligan as if your playing against mono red, or its a free loss, ive mulled down to 4 and still bet mono-red lol
I don't blame you for getting frustrated, bud. Bo1 can be supremely frustrating, since it expects you to metagame in the first game, and agency is low.
What makes Magic fun and different from other card games - in my opinion, at least - is its high agency. As Magic has gotten faster (or in time periods where interaction has been not good enough), this can feel very bad, especially with the quirks of the mana system as a balancing feature. I have watched a couple of your Magic streams, and it looked like you were having more fun with the Golgari Midrange deck even though you were struggling with it and making mistakes.
The amount of decision points you have to make in a game will increase the speed at which you learn. In my opinion, it might be more productive to flounder and misplay with a deck that has high agency (such as a midrange deck), since you will learn a lot more in the average game. In many of these games watching you play the rabbit deck, I could see you struggle to see what you could have done differently with the current construction of the deck. You appeared visibly unhappy because it seemed like you were faced with only bad choices. Personally, I don't enjoy playing aggro (at least in non-eternal formats) for this reason. I'd rather lose to my own mistakes than be at the mercy of luck, since then I always have something to reflect on and improve for next time.
As in life, the best way to learn in Magic is to fail WHILE understanding the reason that you failed. I think challenging yourself with a deck with a lot of decision points will be the fastest (and most enjoyable) way to learn. Chat may make fun of you if you misplay, but Magic is a complicated game where most every play is debatable and the line you're envisioning may be different from what chat is seeing. I certainly hope that chat is there to watch you have fun as a person whose company they enjoy and not to play perfectly, so why not lean into that? Play what makes you feel like you're learning the most, and you'll probably have the most fun along the way.
Hi. I'm the guy who left the "massive punt" message at 49:18. First off, I do want to apologize. I thought you asked if there was anything you could have done to have won the game, so I answered based on what I heard, but re watching the vod I clearly just backseated unsolicited, which is not what I wanted to do in a stream series that was already backseating hell. That being said, I do also want to explain why convoking the knight was the correct play in that game in a bit more detail, just to make point I was trying to make clear. If you don't care, feel free to ignore the rest of this comment and just accept the apology.
Knight-Errant can be paid for by convoking a number of creatures and a number of lands. This means you can pay its entire cost through convoke, or just some of the cost through convoke and the rest with lands. You had 6 lands in play when you played the knight. This means you could convoke the knight with 3 creatures, tap two lands, and play out the knight to get two creatures with mana value 3 or less to your hand. You could then tap the remaining 4 lands to play some number of the creatures from your hand, which would likely be two creatures, presuming you were able to get some combination of creatures that cost less than 4 mana total off the knight. You then would've passed the turn with the same number of blockers, but a far more developed board that would've allowed a much larger attack on the next turn, either allowing you to force through your own win, or forcing your opponent to block with more creatures, preventing them from having lethal on you on the turn after next.
Not just that. Even if he ends up unable to play any more minions because he's unlucky and doesn't hit anything with the Knight, the opponent only had 4 non-flying units on board vs Rarran's 7. Lack of blockers really wasn't the issue, and the opponent's minions were mostly 1 or 2 attack, meaning he wouldn't even have to block everything to survive.
He seems to have overlooked how massively scary his own board was and that his opponent was even more in the position of "If I attack, I just lose". In this particular situation, he would have hit the Jackpot with the Evangelist since it comes with a massive 4/4 flying blocker, which is exactly what he needed to shut down the enemy's only current path to victory. On top of that, if it's still not enough, he gets to chain scry to make sure he hits a minion every single turn.
Even without Evangelist, any 2 creatures he plays are massively scary with the Questcallers on board. He was very close to having lethal on board. Mentor was also among the candidates, which would have been at least an 10/10 with trample. Even something simple like Pawpatch Recruit would have been a 5/4 that comes with a 4/4 token, both of whom have trample.
Basically, there are a ton of combinations he could have hit with the Knight that would have likely won him the game (including the one he did hit). "Massive punt" was probably too aggressive in terms of its phrasing, because he is new to the game, and everyone makes mistakes. But it did lose him the game that he likely would have won.
I think CGB coaching him is what he needs right now because he doesn't seem to realize how many misplays he's still making, and chat isn't really a good avenue of explaining these nuances.
@@Louigi36 Agree with all of this. "Massive Punt" was probably a bit too aggressive a phrase on my end, even if it is technically correct. I wasn't familiar with Rarran's decklist, and I didn't want to go too deep into the math, so I didn't see all the nuances and lines of play you got into here. You definitely did a good job of summarizing all the implications this play could have though.
Trying not to just give unwanted solutions or overly imply my answers to these questions:
- why are there three (or even four) Oakhollow Villages in that Rabbit deck? What is it's best use case, what's is it's usual use case, do you want to see more than one in a game?
- what's the highest mana cost in that Rabbit deck? How many cards does it draw, how much filtering can it do (like scrying or surveiling)? How important is it, once you've hit three lands, to see non-land cards?
- what is the Rabbit deck's plan against mono-Red? Mono-Red is annoying as hell, but it is a staple of B01 Arena, has been for a long time, likely will continue to be so. Can you kill it before it kills you? Can you in some way stop it from beating you before you can build up a stronger board and finish them off?
- is the value of trading off creatures (whether attacking or blocking) worth the potential value of keeping the creature around? (no this doesn't have a definitive answer lol - but I tell you what, it most certainly will have different answers to comparable situations in Hearthstone) (and if you want context, I'm referring to attacking with your 2/2 Burrowguard Mentor - a card that will grow much larger and will force them to answer it - when they can block it with a 2/2 lizard dude that already did the thing it's in the deck for)
- conversely, what is the value of destroying a creature with a spell vs keeping the spell to use later? (also obviously not definitive, lol)
- while your hand may have a particular curve-out, given the plethora of removal and hand disruption available in Magic even in Standard, do you have a plan for if your curve-out is disrupted?
- continuing that line of thought, given most opponents will have some type of removal available, is it sensible to assume that your first couple of plays will stick around? If those plays are crucial for how the rest of the game plays out, is this deck actually all that viable?
- ok, I can't help, on the very off chance you actually read this - DO YOU NOT WANT YOUR MOSSWOOD DEADKNIGHT TO DIE? THAT'S HIS WHOLE THING, RARRAN, HE WANTS TO DIE! HE'LL COME BACK! HE'LL GET YOU MORE CARDS WHILE HE DOES SO! LET THE KNIGHT DIE RARRAN!
Looking forward to the CGB collab! I think it's gonna be good to have someone actually coaching instead of chat shouting half solid advice, half nonsense.
Its good to see your understanding of magic evolve. Best advice is can offer is to play BO3 and just keep playing. You will get better just by being exposed to more decks and cards and can strategize around what they might have.
Yes he is right, playing with sideboard is way more balance and it will help you with decks interactions deep comprehension faster. 1vs1 Magic gameplay is build to be played in best of 3.
Almost there man keep at it
40:40 Technically you can kill Glissa by quadriple blocking but it is a very desparate play and you lose 3 creatures for a single glissa. Also that assumes the opponent attacks at all with her. Usually Glissa is either removal target or you can trade it with a first strike creature of your own.
Imagine getting 4 for 1 with a single removal spell, that's a scary block
@@TheGhostlandsyep and even worse they could go 4 for 0 if they have an equipment or a buff spell that gives you 1/0 and draws you a card
You don't block Glissa, you _attack_ Glissa. Since the bats were trading 2 points every turn, the only option after that point is to rush Glissa or lose to the life gain. Deathtouch is scary, First Strike DT is even worse, but it's a losing gamestate and it's only going to get worse if you refuse to attack.
Tough luck Rarran but you are getting better at understanding the game. I feel for you with this deck though because it's kind of draft chaff, I don't think it's very good, I mean on it's own it could be fine but it dies hard to the meta.
The mana system is pretty bad however WoC have given relatively good ways to mitigate it by having fetch lands,scry/survail lands,creature lands, other consistency cards like creatures that draw you land, spells that do that or scry or draw.
But the descision for this mana system imo could be to balance color mixing while still making it possible. In hearthstone for example the mana system is grear but you cant combine two or more classes' cards.
For me at least as long as WoC release lands that help you not flood as much I'm relatively fine with the mana system
The balanced form of color mixing _is_ the form Magic has now. Players using multiple colors are taxed by the opportunity cost of being able to cast their spells.
WUBRG (all 5 colors), while really bad in Standard, is the king of Commander as slow games mean WUBRG gets to cast the best each color has to offer. The drawback is that every good WUBRG deck looks the same.
Tapped lands and colored mana are a brilliantly designed way to make splicing different archetypes together, possible and balanced.
And to addend, the same idea flies not just for mono or multi colored mana, but also for Lands vs. Nonlands, as a proper balance is required to cast spells there, as well.
In one of the last games, you had go for the throat at beginning of combat and then he'd just have 2 1/1s the next turn get glissa down and you have 2 blockers for the squee in his had and 3 goblins so you go to 1 but he wouldn't attack because that would run him out of everything, you had some time to get some draws, like I don't think it was likely to win but it wasn't over could have went your way
The land system is the core of Magic. Firstly, it's a flavor thing. Secondly, it gates playing certain cards together - like, say Hearthstones classes - but with flexibility to still let you do it, it just may not be an effective or consistent deck.
Thirdly, it creates pacing. There's a reason Hearthstone uses mana crystals. Buuut, it also provides variation to the pacing.
To continue with that, fourthly, it creates tension - and this is really important. It lets you keep that two-lander when your five non-lands are straight gas but boooooy you hope you get that third land on curve. It lets me keep a five lander in the final game of a Bloomburrow draft when one of the cards is the Boooaaarrr (5/5 trample reach haste pig of doom) and I know if I get that down, the game is probably mine.
(but actually, lets unpack that, because it's also a good example of deck-building tension and how that informs what hands you keep and how you play the deck. I had 15 lands in that deck, but it wasn't a low-curve deck; I had managed to draft five (5!) creatures that could produce mana, so I could comfortably run less lands than the 'recommended' 17 for a 40 card deck (and three colors, for that matter). So, I knew with 1/3 of all my lands in hand already, I was far more likely to draw non-lands that I needed.
And I did win the game - I did get the boar down, and I enchanted it with an aura that gives +1/+1 to make it a 6/6, instead of buffing a smaller creature, just in case my opponent drew their Dragonhawk that won game 2 for them. And they did! But could not attack with it on their next turn because of my boar. At the end of that turn I cast a discard one - draw two spell, discarding a land, and DREW TWO FREAKIN LANDS, which felt pretty bad. And then on my turn, I drew MY OWN DRAGONHAWK, which felt fuckin incredible. Again, tension is important and the land system is a big part of it in Magic)
Anyway lastly, the lands being actual game pieces is probably the most important bit. You can, eg, discard them to spells that let you draw more cards but make you discard before or after doing so. You can sacrifice them to various effects to do things (like drawing cards! or other things, look up the recently-rotated Temur Analyst deck). You can use lands with abilities so you don't mind so much when you have lots - like creature lands, I love creature lands!
You can play some blue-green desert lands (I liked to do this with black-green too, I love Golgari and all of it's three color variants lol) that deal 1 damage to opponent when they enter, eventually cast Doppelgang for a lot and make a bunch of copies of your deserts, dealing a bunch more damage and getting you a bunch more mana (and you can combo this with Spelunking... but you can figure that one out ;) )
God damn. Was like every game rar played with a discard deck jesus?
Mono Red Player: You're so bad!
It's always a mono red player, because they don't know what to do after turn 10. That's untraveled territory lolol
If ever try again maybe do it for Brawl the commander like format
Mtg can be hella tilting, lands in draft are probs the most tilting for me personally, also look into whats meta if your trying to grind later tbh, i think lizards might be better atm and cheap
I think your GW rabbit deck needs more interaction. It could be in form of a couple Get Lost or the enchantment Case of the Gateway Express. This enchantment can do damage to any creature equal to the number of creatures that you control. Plus it can also give your creatures a power boost after you attack with 3 or more creatures. This options with clear the board a bit for you to attack or at least remove some big threats.
Rabbits is too weak against any boardwipes in my opinion. Just a single lockdown or sunfall and you pretty much lost, it's hard to build a good board again or to finish the game cause you don't have haste creatures or direct burn. But anyway, I enjoy your mtg streams, ty.
I think you'd find bo3 less frustrating.
Platinum is probably the most difficult one to get through. Everyone can get to Platinum since before that you get 2 points / win so the pool of players is the biggest. It also means you can get complete newbies and then you have 20-year veterans with unlimited budget and everything in between. Also a lot of players are playing the most insane aggro decks etc. For some reason I haven't seen as many aggro decks or stupid gimmick decks in Diamond compared to Platinum.
Standard BO1 ranked is probably the most cancerous format in MTG arena. Well, after Alchemy. Also WotC are just dumb by not giving proper lands for Standard.
Richard Garfield actually gave proper dual lands, for example, when he made the game because he knew the land system was shit. For some reason WotC doesn't want to give proper dual lands.
Maybe try playing with someone you know?
I know BO1 is better to watch and you are resistant to this idea but I think you should consider BO3 off-stream at least. The format is slower and less swingy because decks can't go as all-in. More decision points that actually matter, less face rolls.
obstinate baloth is a green card that is its discarded goes to battlefield
The land hate is real.
Its the new player exp.
Land isnt the problem its the result of a bad deck.
To much land and low draw results in top decking moments where drawing a land is just super negative.
Raran is palying super good he just given a shitty white/green pre made deck
Half the trouble is he was playing the green/black combo deck which wants 5-6 lands and yet complaining at 2:00:40 when drawing a fith land to pump the lifelinker was exactly what was needed, as mono red can't deal with big creatures and also sets up for the combo.
Rarran does see the lines to lethal and was doing well in that draft with the lizards, I enjoy watching someone learn MTG (or play a Soulsgame for the first time) so I hope he gets some good tips on the fundamentals from CGB and maybe some youtube videos. Personally I never play white or white/green aggro because though they can really snowball, there's not much room for removal and as the chat said, aggro runs out of steam fast. I tend to play green, black or both with around 8-9 instant removal.
Its not hearthstone is it buddy.
I race back to mythic each season. I'm always second with me jank right behind my buddies mono red.
Ok after watching this has nothing to do with Rarran. That rabbit deck is just garbage.
No interaction and just kinda slow for aggro and no card draw. Like Rarran is fighting nukes with a coughing baby.
Dont ever surrender early in mtg. Those last second draws are always game changers
Watch the old lore, thrans, brothers war, pherixians, urza's saga. It's so good, weird, dark and so good
land as mana is indeed the worst idea in card games.