It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: DLCR: Fertile Thicket
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:35 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 7258
Image
Greven's Rating system:
5.0: First pick no matter what. I will always play this card.
4.5: Splashable and first pick worthy.
4.0: First pick pack 1.
3.5: Early pick though not always a first pick.
3.0: Solid early/mid pick.
2.5: Solid pick in color.
2.0: Should generally make the deck if in this color.
1.5: Decent filler.
1.0: 23rd card if you have to.
0.5: This card will sometimes be sideboarded in.
0.0: I will never put this card into my deck (main deck or after sideboarding).


This card is just very solid - and very nearly free. I would probably play 3-4 in any 3+ color or landfall deck.
I did screw the up at the pre-release by revealing late game when the last thing I wanted was a basic land.

I believe it is strictly correct to look at the top 5 cards (unless you have already scryed or something and are sure you want what is there ), even if you don't want a land, because the information is valuable. It's not *very* valuable however, such that you might get demoralized by seeing a card you want get bottomed.

(If you are not following, the reason the info is valuable is that you'd rather playing knowing you will never draw an out than play having it on the bottom not knowing...). I guess if you have 5 or 6 Fertile Thickets then late in the game you could probably totally restack your deck!

_________________
"Everything looks good when your opponent passes 4 turns in a row" -- rstnme
"Something that does not look good when your opponent does nothing is not a thing" -- me


Last edited by Zenbitz on Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:37 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Dec 07, 2013
Posts: 3433
1.0

I totally hate this. The best it can do is let you keep a speculative two-lander, but I keep those mostly anyway. In limited, you often have a few powerful cards, and milling one of those can be a disaster. If it was look and then decide to reveal, great. But that would be rare power level. As is, I don't want to play it.

_________________
Go draft, young man, go draft!


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:32 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 11310
Location: Asleep at the wheel
Preferred Pronoun Set: SE / squinty / squints
1.5 at best.

~SE++

_________________
[D&D 5E] Princes of the Apocalypse | Set-up | In Character | Out of Character | Map: Lance Rock

[Johnny's Quest] October 12 - 18: Cloudstone Curio


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 5:19 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 30, 2013
Posts: 8960
Location: Brazil
You play this in every Green deck, so it's at least a 2.0. It's not a 2.5, though. The ceiling is too low.

_________________
Yes, I'm from Brazil and no, I'm not an annoying ****.

RPG characters


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:21 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 7258
Quote:
In limited, you often have a few powerful cards, and milling one of those can be a disaster


This thinking is 100% mathematically unsound. There is a bad interaction of this card with your opponents ingest, but other than that, before you play this you have a random deck. After you play it (and look) you either have a random deck (in which you know the bottom 5 cards in order) or a random deck with a land on top (in which you know the bottom 4 cards).

I found it very good when I played landfall (and here often the CIPT doesn't hurt you much because you land fall dudes are cheap), and it's also pretty decent if you need to fix your mana (not GREAT mind you, but decent -- like obviously if you are splashing 1-2 swamps or something they are not likely to be your top 5 cards BUT sometimes you need to "reverse splash" to get than 2nd plains or forest for a double colored card.

_________________
"Everything looks good when your opponent passes 4 turns in a row" -- rstnme
"Something that does not look good when your opponent does nothing is not a thing" -- me


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:56 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Dec 07, 2013
Posts: 3433
Well, the only time this card is good IMO is when your hand is stacked, and you just need another land in order to be able to cast all your stuff. But you don't really need the Thicket for that, natural drawing is mostly good enough, and Thicket may well hurt your development more than help it. You have a point about landfall, but then, if they have an ingester you are unwilling/able to block, it's just a CIP tapped land. So ATM I'm picking it after pick ten, if there's nothing playable left, and probably not playing it.

Oh, and mathematically unsound: you are wrong. If you don't play the Thicket, the chances of your bomb being in the top five are higher than if you play it and look. Because in the second case, all the cases where the bomb was on top transform into cases where it's on the bottom. Which makes it twice as likely that your bomb is in the bottom five, and impossible for it to be in the top five.

Edit: forget it, you get the next five on top, which are again just as likely to have your bomb in it. So it comes down to that milling your bomb makes for some unhappy moments.

I also watched CalebD play with it, and I'm even more convinced I'm right. Outside of the times when all you want is to get another landfall trigger, this is bad.

_________________
Go draft, young man, go draft!


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:06 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 7258
This set is weird. Most formats I am so rarely happy to draw a land this would be bad. In this format, I find this to be not true. BUT if you are not playing landfall and are playing a 17 land (GW allies?) deck, I could see cutting it. But so many spells in this format are expensive that you very rarely play >1. So this is good on turn 1 (CITP is fine,and if you are land light and have a 2 or 3 drop you can put a land on top), bad on turns 2-3-4 generally, and then it starts to get better, up until the 8th land which is not super relevant (unless you have a lot of landfall triggers, then it's fine).

If you want a landfall trigger, it's often BETTER than drawing a non-land.

_________________
"Everything looks good when your opponent passes 4 turns in a row" -- rstnme
"Something that does not look good when your opponent does nothing is not a thing" -- me


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group