iMtG Server: Gathering

Magic (The Gathering) => Discussion => Topic started by: Spikepit on October 22, 2013, 06:11:49 AM

Title: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Spikepit on October 22, 2013, 06:11:49 AM
Is {Alms Beast} a good card? Why?
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Gorzo on October 22, 2013, 06:30:26 AM
In the right deck, yes. Paired with {Erebos, God of the Dead}, it's a 6/6 for 4 mana with no downside. That's pretty handy.

Erebos aside, I'm not sure. A 6/6 that forces chump blocks is pretty nice, but the lifegain clause can be a real nuisance. In a constructed format, I really can't get a feel for it. Unless, of course, I'm pairing it with stuff to negate that lifelink thing (Erebos, first strike, unblockable, etc)
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Birdbrain on October 22, 2013, 07:45:31 AM
Quote from: Gorzo on October 22, 2013, 06:30:26 AM
In the right deck, yes. Paired with {Erebos, God of the Dead}, it's a 6/6 for 4 mana with no downside. That's pretty handy.

Erebos aside, I'm not sure. A 6/6 that forces chump blocks is pretty nice, but the lifegain clause can be a real nuisance. In a constructed format, I really can't get a feel for it. Unless, of course, I'm pairing it with stuff to negate that lifelink thing (Erebos, first strike, unblockable, etc)
isnt there a card that turns life gain into life loss, or am I just crazy?
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: iTzTowelie404 on October 22, 2013, 08:34:49 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain on October 22, 2013, 07:45:31 AM
Quote from: Gorzo on October 22, 2013, 06:30:26 AM
In the right deck, yes. Paired with {Erebos, God of the Dead}, it's a 6/6 for 4 mana with no downside. That's pretty handy.

Erebos aside, I'm not sure. A 6/6 that forces chump blocks is pretty nice, but the lifegain clause can be a real nuisance. In a constructed format, I really can't get a feel for it. Unless, of course, I'm pairing it with stuff to negate that lifelink thing (Erebos, first strike, unblockable, etc)
isnt there a card that turns life gain into life loss, or am I just crazy?

I think there is, but not in standard.
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Mlerner12 on October 22, 2013, 10:20:18 AM
I do not like it. Yes, it is a 6/6 for 4, which would be very good. However, they gain life whenever they block it or get blocked by it. Against tokens, that is extremely bad, but against low-creature decks it is... Less bad. If you can give unblockable or get Erebos it is better, but it is normally not good. Just my 2¢ :P
Note: I greatly prefer {Vexing Devil}. 4/3 for 1 is amazing, although they can pay 4 life (a pretty sizable loss for T1) to sac. Just my 2¢, again. 4¢ total.
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: DirtyMustachio on October 22, 2013, 10:26:31 AM
Says what's up with {aqueous form} , {gods willing} or {brave the elements}
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Mattao19 on October 22, 2013, 10:41:29 AM
Quote from: Mlerner12 on October 22, 2013, 10:20:18 AM
I do not like it. Yes, it is a 6/6 for 4, which would be very good. However, they gain life whenever they block it or get blocked by it. Against tokens, that is extremely bad, but against low-creature decks it is... Less bad. If you can give unblockable or get Erebos it is better, but it is normally not good. Just my 2¢ :P
Note: I greatly prefer {Vexing Devil}. 4/3 for 1 is amazing, although they can pay 4 life (a pretty sizable loss for T1) to sac. Just my 2¢, again. 4¢ total.

Damn all I have is a nickel. Do you have change?
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Mlerner12 on October 22, 2013, 10:44:15 AM
Quote from: Mattao19 on October 22, 2013, 10:41:29 AM
Quote from: Mlerner12 on October 22, 2013, 10:20:18 AM
I do not like it. Yes, it is a 6/6 for 4, which would be very good. However, they gain life whenever they block it or get blocked by it. Against tokens, that is extremely bad, but against low-creature decks it is... Less bad. If you can give unblockable or get Erebos it is better, but it is normally not good. Just my 2¢ :P
Note: I greatly prefer {Vexing Devil}. 4/3 for 1 is amazing, although they can pay 4 life (a pretty sizable loss for T1) to sac. Just my 2¢, again. 4¢ total.

Damn all I have is a nickel. Do you have change?
Yeah, sure.
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Apathy Reactor on October 22, 2013, 10:57:40 PM
Quote from: Mlerner12 on October 22, 2013, 10:44:15 AM
Quote from: Mattao19 on October 22, 2013, 10:41:29 AM
Quote from: Mlerner12 on October 22, 2013, 10:20:18 AM
I do not like it. Yes, it is a 6/6 for 4, which would be very good. However, they gain life whenever they block it or get blocked by it. Against tokens, that is extremely bad, but against low-creature decks it is... Less bad. If you can give unblockable or get Erebos it is better, but it is normally not good. Just my 2¢ :P
Note: I greatly prefer {Vexing Devil}. 4/3 for 1 is amazing, although they can pay 4 life (a pretty sizable loss for T1) to sac. Just my 2¢, again. 4¢ total.

Damn all I have is a nickel. Do you have change?
Yeah, sure.
gotta love that little red ball of vexation
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on October 22, 2013, 11:17:18 PM
Quote from: Spikepit on October 22, 2013, 06:11:49 AM
Is {Alms Beast} a good card? Why?
Have to agree with everyone else. Maybe if it had lifelink itself, or deathtouch or something it might be playable but as is, its pretty crappy...
Title: Re: Group Consensus pt. 3
Post by: Apathy Reactor on October 22, 2013, 11:43:35 PM
Is say it is more situational than anything, it would be effective if it is unblockable, the opponent can't gain life, or they are mana screwed with no creatures