Vedalken Orrery

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Anyone have a tentative opinion on Vedalken Orrery?
It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
this one.
Admittedly, some will benefit more than others...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Sorcier, volume 23:
> Anyone have a tentative opinion on Vedalken Orrery?

Possibly rewarding if you built your whole deck around it, but very slow.
It'll be turn 5 before you start getting any real benefit from it.

> It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!

Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp before
I could even cast an Orrery.

> I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
> this one.

"Decks that win games" spring to mind.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Sorcier" <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote in message
news9vwc.165$so1.64165@news.uswest.net...
> Anyone have a tentative opinion on Vedalken Orrery?
> It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
> I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
> this one.
> Admittedly, some will benefit more than others...

Seems pretty unbroken to me. It lets creature decks have the threat of
dropping blockers during combat or getting pseudo-haste by dropping stuff at
end-of-turn, but that's about it. Personally, I have trouble picturing decks
that *would* benefit from it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Chris Wiegert" <cwiegert@telus.net> wrote in message
news:S3Jwc.54923$OI5.42071@edtnps84...

> Seems pretty unbroken to me. It lets creature decks have the threat of
> dropping blockers during combat or getting pseudo-haste by dropping stuff
at
> end-of-turn, but that's about it. Personally, I have trouble picturing
decks
> that *would* benefit from it.

Eot Wog anyone? If artifact hate decreases after the ban, this just might
see the light of play in mwc...

 

[clayton]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Sorcier" <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote in message news9vwc.165$so1.64165@news.uswest.net...
> Anyone have a tentative opinion on Vedalken Orrery?
> It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
> I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
> this one.
> Admittedly, some will benefit more than others...

Fun, but not as broken as it looks.

First of all, it's 4 to cast itself and can't really do anything alone. You
need other things to put it to use. Its only use is to play stuff faster.
Admittidly, 4 for an EoT Wrath of God with an Orrery is better than
7 for an EoT Rout (It IS 7 right?) without one.

In comprison, Skullclamp is 2 to use initally (1 to cast, 1 to equip) and
has 2 kind of synergetic effects -- The toughness reduction possibly
to death and the "draw 2 cards" part. Many decks can use and exploit
the Clamp.

However, time will tell if the Orrery proves to be as good as it sounds.
My B/R LD deck might like it as I can cast its sorceries when I feel like it.
Control decks might like it as sweepers tend to more often be sorceries and
the flexibility would give them more control.

I think it would be best with Sorceries and CIP effect creatures. Though it
might be interesting to see if Affinity could make use of it ... not only plop
down Myr Enforcers for nothing, but do it at their leisure. The Orrery provides
flexibility to the Clamp's near-insane card advantage. However, only time
will tell just *how* good Veldalken Orrery would be.

-------
Clayton

Random Tagline:
You want fries with that?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Chris Wiegert wrote:
> "Sorcier" <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote in message
> news9vwc.165$so1.64165@news.uswest.net...
>
>>Anyone have a tentative opinion on Vedalken Orrery?
>>It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
>>I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
>>this one.
>>Admittedly, some will benefit more than others...
>
>
> Seems pretty unbroken to me. It lets creature decks have the threat of
> dropping blockers during combat or getting pseudo-haste by dropping stuff at
> end-of-turn, but that's about it. Personally, I have trouble picturing decks
> that *would* benefit from it.
>
>

I think discard decks could benefit from it.
(I'm a casual player, so my comments may not be very applicable to the
tournament environment)

Culling the weak could get it out pretty quickly.
Then again, it would be an end game card really.
If you manage to get your opponents hand empty, it would be rather
painful to make him discard in his draw phase, basically denying his
draw (unless he draws an instant, or has a Vedalken Orrery himself)
I know of only two cards that, without the help of the Orrery, can make
your opponent discard a card at instant 'speed'.
(Funeral Charm and Necrogen Spellbomb)



Decks that use a lot of creatures with a 'when this comes into play'
ability may gain from it as well. (Man-o'-War, Uktabi Orangutan, ...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Hello, Bowmore!
You wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:26:22 +0200:

B> I know of only two cards that, without the help of the Orrery,
B> can make
B> your opponent discard a card at instant 'speed'.
B> (Funeral Charm and Necrogen Spellbomb)

Abyssal Specter with a Viridian Longbow on (unlike other Specters, it
doesn't say "combat damage", just "damage")

Regards,
Arkady.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Arkady Zilberberg <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:26:22 +0200:
>B> I know of only two cards that, without the help of the Orrery, can make
>B> your opponent discard a card at instant 'speed'.
>B> (Funeral Charm and Necrogen Spellbomb)
>
>Abyssal Specter with a Viridian Longbow on (unlike other Specters, it
>doesn't say "combat damage", just "damage")

There are a very few, yes. The first one was Insidious Bookworms. They've
known about draw-step discard-lock for a long long time, so tend to be fairly
careful about making sure discard effects can't happen during opponent's
draw step for most of them.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David Chapman wrote:

> From the Collected Witterings of Sorcier, volume 23:
>
>>Anyone have a tentative opinion on Vedalken Orrery?
>
> Possibly rewarding if you built your whole deck around it, but very slow.
> It'll be turn 5 before you start getting any real benefit from it.
>
>>It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
>
> Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp before
> I could even cast an Orrery.

I didn't say it _is_ more broken.

>>I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
>>this one.
>
> "Decks that win games" spring to mind.

Depends on the metagame.
It is sad to see that the high-level metagame is trapped in a win
by Turn 5 lock, rather than supporting more interesting play.
But really, if winning decks can't get the Orrery out and use it,
how the hell are they getting Drarksteel Colossi out?
(Yes, I do know a couple of instant creature tricks, but still...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Chris Wiegert wrote:

> Seems pretty unbroken to me. It lets creature decks have the threat of
> dropping blockers during combat or getting pseudo-haste by dropping stuff at
> end-of-turn, but that's about it. Personally, I have trouble picturing decks
> that *would* benefit from it.

Maybe I'm just too use to seeing Sorcery's that would greatly improve
by being instants.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Clayton wrote:

>
> Control decks might like it as sweepers tend to more often be sorceries and
> the flexibility would give them more control.

That's a major place I'm looking at it for.
It'd be a big help against haste decks and such.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Sorcier, volume 23:
> David Chapman wrote:

>>> It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
>>
>> Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp
>> before I could even cast an Orrery.
>
> I didn't say it _is_ more broken.

Yes, you did. This isn't 1995; if Orrery is more obviously broken than
Clamp, it also has to be more broken.

Anyway, you're still totally wrong. Skullcamp is the most obviously broken
card ever printed. (Other cards are more broken, but it wasn't as obvious -
certainly not at the time.) When people saw Skullclamp on MTGnews they
assumed it was a fake and when the review appeared on MTG.com they thought
it had to be a joke, because there was no way a card so clearly degenerate
would ever make it through development. Vedalken Orrery people looked at
and thought, "Looks fun. Maybe has possibilities."

>>> I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
>>> this one.
>>
>> "Decks that win games" spring to mind.
>
> Depends on the metagame.
> It is sad to see that the high-level metagame is trapped in a win
> by Turn 5 lock, rather than supporting more interesting play.

That's a bloody stupid thing to say. People who play decks because they're
interesting aren't playing in the high-level metagame.

> But really, if winning decks can't get the Orrery out and use it,
> how the hell are they getting Drarksteel Colossi out?

To get the Orrery out and use it, you need to have the mana *and* the card
you want to play as an instant. To get Darksteel Colossus out, you need 11
mana and the Colossus or 9 mana and Tooth and Nail.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David Chapman wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:01:52 +0100 in article
news:<2io5ggFpbu80U6@uni-berlin.de>:
> Anyway, you're still totally wrong. Skullcamp is the most obviously broken
> card ever printed. (Other cards are more broken, but it wasn't as obvious -
> certainly not at the time.)

Memory Jar?

--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Rast, volume 23:
> David Chapman wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:01:52 +0100 in article
> news:<2io5ggFpbu80U6@uni-berlin.de>:
>> Anyway, you're still totally wrong. Skullcamp is the most obviously
>> broken card ever printed. (Other cards are more broken, but it wasn't
>> as obvious - certainly not at the time.)
>
> Memory Jar?

Memory Jar printed today really wouldn't be all that broken - well, apart
from the "discard seven" aspect that still works with Megrim. Jar was
broken because of the free spells, which were the real mistake that R&D
made.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David Chapman wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:11:56 +0100 in article
news:<2ionseFp1t8fU4@uni-berlin.de>:
> Memory Jar printed today really wouldn't be all that broken

Uh, no.

Jar is only bad in a format at the same power level as an 8E precon. If a
deck can reasonably use 4 or more of the cards drawn, jar is strong -- when
it can use all 7, jar is broken.

> from the "discard seven" aspect that still works with Megrim. Jar was
> broken because of the free spells, which were the real mistake that R&D
> made.

Forget Megrim. If Jar was in the base set, it would appear in at least one
tier one deck every season, maybe all of them.

Jar has a pretty good interaction with tog and mongrel, not to mention most
of the other cards in Odyssey block.

Onslaught block? Jar would be in the Goblin Bidding combo deck, along with
the red ritual and maybe even the "goblin ritual".

Mirrodin block? Affinity would play Prism to power out jar. The Ironworks
deck would run 4 copies of jar.

--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Rast, volume 23:
> David Chapman wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:11:56 +0100 in article
> news:<2ionseFp1t8fU4@uni-berlin.de>:
>> Memory Jar printed today really wouldn't be all that broken
>
> Uh, no.
>
> Jar is only bad in a format at the same power level as an 8E precon. If a
> deck can reasonably use 4 or more of the cards drawn, jar is strong --
> when it can use all 7, jar is broken.

A deck these days would have to work damned hard to use four or more of the
cards, and it's not as easy to assemble the mana as it was then. It also
wouldn't be doing it's thing on turn 1 or 2 regardless; it would be doing it
around turn 4, which is acceptable. Any other problems with it are again
caused by stupid mana accelerants like the Ironworks, not inherent issues
with the card.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David DeLaney wrote:
> Arkady Zilberberg <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:26:22 +0200:
>>B> I know of only two cards that, without the help of the Orrery, can make
>>B> your opponent discard a card at instant 'speed'.
>>B> (Funeral Charm and Necrogen Spellbomb)
>>
>>Abyssal Specter with a Viridian Longbow on (unlike other Specters, it
>>doesn't say "combat damage", just "damage")
>
>
> There are a very few, yes. The first one was Insidious Bookworms. They've
> known about draw-step discard-lock for a long long time, so tend to be fairly
> careful about making sure discard effects can't happen during opponent's
> draw step for most of them.
>
> Dave

Abyssal Specter + Viridian Longbow would work, but
that is already two cards working together, and pretty costly
too. Admitted, it takes care of the opponents draw every turn.

Insidious bookworms can also make your opponent discard during his
draw-step, but it also needs help from another effect that can kill the
bookworms at that time.

For my own discard deck I wouldn't use the Viridian Longbow because it
would only fulfill its intended purpose with the abyssal specter (which
isn't in the deck).

The insidious bookworms would be interesting, but I don't have any means
to kill them in my current discard deck. I've considered them before
but they tend to not make it in the deck. I feel I can't really play
them on turn one, since I wouldn't have the mana to pay for their
ability, should an opponent kill them.

At the moment my discard deck is focused more on actually making the
opponent discard, rather than emptying his hand.
The core of the deck is Anvil of Bogardan, Megrim, Geth's Grimoire.

Thanks for your replies guys.

Bowmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David Chapman wrote:

> From the Collected Witterings of Sorcier, volume 23:
>
>>David Chapman wrote:
>
>>>>It seems more obviously broken than Skullclamp!
>>>
>>>Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp
>>>before I could even cast an Orrery.
>>
>>I didn't say it _is_ more broken.
>
> Yes, you did. This isn't 1995; if Orrery is more obviously broken than
> Clamp, it also has to be more broken.

Reread it, Dave.
I clearly did NOT say it IS more broken.
I certainly implied it, but I didn't say it.
I specifically didn't say it because I don't know the game well
enough to make such a declaritive.
I thought Clamp was damn good when I first saw it, but didn't realize,
even when the ban was first announced, that it really was broken.
I'm certaintly not, in light of that, going to _state_ that another
card definitively is!
If you don't believe me read the bloody text you quoted from me above!
And read _EVERY_ word in it this time.

>>>>I'm having trouble picturing many decks that wouldn't benefit from
>>>>this one.
>>>
>>>"Decks that win games" spring to mind.
>>
>>Depends on the metagame.
>>It is sad to see that the high-level metagame is trapped in a win
>>by Turn 5 lock, rather than supporting more interesting play.
>
> That's a bloody stupid thing to say. People who play decks because they're
> interesting aren't playing in the high-level metagame.

Duh!
Pay attention!
I didn't limit discussion to the "high-level metagame".
It ain't the only game out there!

>>But really, if winning decks can't get the Orrery out and use it,
>>how the hell are they getting Darrksteel Colossi out?
>
> To get the Orrery out and use it, you need to have the mana *and* the card
> you want to play as an instant. To get Darksteel Colossus out, you need 11
> mana and the Colossus or 9 mana and Tooth and Nail.

There's faster ways.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

> Chris Wiegert wrote:
>
> > Seems pretty unbroken to me. It lets creature decks have the threat
of
> > dropping blockers during combat or getting pseudo-haste by dropping
stuff at
> > end-of-turn, but that's about it. Personally, I have trouble picturing
decks
> > that *would* benefit from it.
>
> Maybe I'm just too use to seeing Sorcery's that would greatly improve
> by being instants.

Let me slightly modify my statement: I don't have trouble picturing
decks that would benefit from it, I just have trouble picturing decks that
would get enough benefit from the Orrery to justify giving it space in the
deck. Drawing Wrath without Orrery is still pretty darn good. Drawing Orrery
without Wrath is a dead card. Why risk dead cards?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Chris Wiegert wrote:

>
> Let me slightly modify my statement: I don't have trouble picturing
> decks that would benefit from it, I just have trouble picturing decks that
> would get enough benefit from the Orrery to justify giving it space in the
> deck. Drawing Wrath without Orrery is still pretty darn good. Drawing Orrery
> without Wrath is a dead card. Why risk dead cards?

Well, if you're playing around Wrath you're planning to draw
Wrath eventually. The worst the Orrery draw did is delay you one draw.
But that draw could have just as easily been what you included
instead of Orrery.
Wrath'ing out someone's suprise attack sounds damned powerful to me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David Chapman wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:49:00 +0100 in article
news:<2ip0u8FppqjrU1@uni-berlin.de>:
> From the Collected Witterings of Rast, volume 23:
> > David Chapman wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:11:56 +0100 in article
> > news:<2ionseFp1t8fU4@uni-berlin.de>:
> >> Memory Jar printed today really wouldn't be all that broken
> >
> > Uh, no.
> >
> > Jar is only bad in a format at the same power level as an 8E precon. If a
> > deck can reasonably use 4 or more of the cards drawn, jar is strong --
> > when it can use all 7, jar is broken.
>
> A deck these days would have to work damned hard to use four or more of the
> cards, and it's not as easy to assemble the mana as it was then.

I don't know what you mean by "these days" -- I've already pointed out that
ironworks would certainly run it, some affinity builds would run it, and
probably even some goblin bidding builds (it might turn out to not optimum in
bidding). So basically it would be in every deck except W/x control.

Kinda like clamp.

--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

David Chapman wrote:

>
> Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp before
> I could even cast an Orrery.

It later struck me that this doesn't seem to make sense.
Did you have a way of getting 20 creatures into play and equipping
each without having 4 mana available???

(OTOH, I've drawn plenty of cards with Clamp before Orrery even
existed, so maybe you're just being clever? <G>)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Sorcier wrote on Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:56:21 -0400 in article
news:<Pb9yc.67$oX1.51469@news.uswest.net>:
> David Chapman wrote:
>
> >
> > Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp before
> > I could even cast an Orrery.
>
> It later struck me that this doesn't seem to make sense.
> Did you have a way of getting 20 creatures into play and equipping
> each without having 4 mana available???

The combo deck with the guy who reduces equip costs.

--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Rast wrote:

> Sorcier wrote on Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:56:21 -0400 in article
> news:<Pb9yc.67$oX1.51469@news.uswest.net>:
>
>>David Chapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pardon me, but that's bullshit. I've drawn 40 cards with Skullclamp before
>>>I could even cast an Orrery.
>>
>>It later struck me that this doesn't seem to make sense.
>>Did you have a way of getting 20 creatures into play and equipping
>>each without having 4 mana available???
>
> The combo deck with the guy who reduces equip costs.

Forgot that card. ;(

Auriok Steelshaper
{1}{W}
Creature -- Human Soldier
1/1
Equip costs you pay cost {1} less.
As long as Auriok Steelshaper is equipped, Soldiers and Knights you
control get +1/+1.

Turn 1: Clamp
Turn 2: Auriok Steelshaper

But where'd the twenty X/1 creatures come from on turn 3?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Sorcier, volume 23:
> David Chapman wrote:

>> All I did was address a
>> single specific issue within the discussion - an issue that *you* raised,
>
> Actually you did.
> I didn't limit "decks that win" to ones that will find Orrery too slow.

That's backwards. You tacitly included "decks that win" in decks that will
*not* find it too slow when you said the card was broken. If the card is
broken, it cannot be too slow.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!