|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Masters 25 (A25)||Common|
|2011 Core Set (M11)||Uncommon|
|2010 Core Set (M10)||Uncommon|
|Tenth Edition (10E)||Uncommon|
|Fifth Dawn (5DN)||Uncommon|
Combos Browse all
Creature — Rat
Relentless Rats gets +1/+1 for each other creature on the battlefield named Relentless Rats.
A deck can have any number of cards named Relentless Rats.
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
|Have (24)||Axtel , CAPTAINxCOOKIES , Supremespeed , Joblaska , Fineontheoutside , Famicomania , electrolynx , webdokkeren , dplerner , silvereh , No1HanSolo , mziter501 , Va1mar , DFDGamer , XxCataclysmiCxX , Dimarx , teslacoil7992 , Esquire_ , philktoken8998 , mazrimtaim , bfarber91 , orzhov_is_relatively_okay819 , goodair ,|
|Want (6)||, supergm123 , BrownstoneCowboy , PrimalProtoss , rhinoloupe , Djricci97|
Relentless Rats Discussion
1 week ago
Seguendo la linea di analisi che ti ho descritto nel vocale e partendo dal principio che piuttosto che una carta scarsa è meglio un Relentless Rats, ti dico:
- Dirty Wererat è scarso, toglilo.
- Mortal Combat è forte se giochi un mazzo che si automilla/scarta molto, altrimenti rischia di diventare inutile, io la toglierei.
- Death Denied è situazionale, rischi di non usarla affatto, così come Gravepurge. Il tuo obbiettivo è avere tante creature in campo, non tante creature al cimitero per usare queste due carte. Togli entrambi e metti il Beacon of Unrest, che può anche riprendere il Thornbite Staff (anche quello di un avversario), che è una win condition.
- Go for the Throat è forte, ma ti serve? Idem per Malicious Affliction. A te le creature non nere o non artefatto non interessano, perché tanto sono quelle che non possono bloccare i tuoi ratti con paura. Toglili entrambi e metti Archetype of Finality, così il giocatore in difesa ci pensa due volte prima di bloccare un topo 1/1, o ad attaccarti.
- Thousand-Year Elixir ti fa stappare Marrow-Gnawer una volta sola, mentre Sword of the Paruns te lo fa fare quante volte vuoi, switchale.
- Trova un posto per Illusionist's Bracers. Sacrifichi un solo topo, ma fai l'abilità due volte. Magari togli un Relentless Rats, o mettila al posto di una delle carte non terra che toglierei, come i due qua sotto.
- Gnat Miser e Locust Miser mi fanno pensare, perché sono facilmente counterati da una Reliquary Tower, nel caso toglili. In effetti, il tuo non è un mazzo fatto per far scartare... non hai Nekusar, the Mindrazer in zona di comando, ecco. Io li toglierei.
- Swarmyard è forte, ma vale 10 euro? Come rapporto prestazioni/prezzo, meglio una Swamp.
- Terramorphic Expanse in un mazzo monocolore è utile come i cavoli a merenda, metti una Swamp.
- Sign in Blood la usi una volta e basta, mentre Carnage Altar, Vampiric Rites e Phyrexian Vault le riusi. Io cercherei di metterle tutte e tre al posto di carte che sarebbe meglio togliere o di qualche Relentless Rats.
- Whip of Erebos non mi sembra particolarmente adatta qui, toglila. Non hai bisogno né di lifelink, né di recursion che poi esilia. -Crypt Ghast e Caged Sun servono se hai cose grosse da lanciare, non per lanciare tante cose piccole (perché in quel caso finiresti solo per finire le carte in mano e basta), io le toglierei, tanto la tua curva è bassa.
- Profane Command, Life's Finale ed Extinguish All Hope non ti servono molto, poiché ti riprendi in fretta dai boardwipe. Metti piuttosto qualcosa che fa resistere Marrow-Gnawer ai boardwipe, come ad esempio Unhallowed Pact, Undying Evil, Supernatural Stamina o Rescue from the Underworld (almeno i primi tre mettili). Se ci pensi, io, nel mazzo di Meren of Clan Nel Toth, non ho nessun boardwipe, però funziona lo stesso, perché ho modi diversi di interagire con la board. Il tuo mazzo, in modo diverso, fa la stessa cosa. Se stai attaccando con 10 ratti con paura e deathtouch dall'Archetype of Finality o semplicemente casti Sudden Spoiling (che puoi castare anche se non sei tu il giocatore attaccante) dopo che il giocatore in difesa dichiara i bloccanti, o dopo che tu hai dichiarato i bloccanti, non è quasi la stessa cosa?
3 weeks ago
This deck is so cool. Have you thought about using Relentless Rats or do you like having one-drops better? Either way, cool deck, +1
1 month ago
Yeah, you are right, I misread:
"It's also pretty silly to use this one user-created definition as gospel."
I mean, to my credit, I though you were saying one-user, and not one-definition, apologies on my part. I believe we are having a civil discussion. But about your whole definition thing, we are talking about semantics, and I disagree that the general definition of the word Archetype directly applies to Magic: The Gathering decks in such a narrow way, but to be fair, that is entirely my opinion, and has no evidence to back it up.
But, with evidence, I can back up the following argument:
Okay, this might be wrong, but hear me out.
EDH, being a four-player (unless you are playing 2 player edh... in which I apologies because what I have said has NOTHING to do with dual commander), 40-life format, and a lack of consistency being 100-card singleton, leads aggro not to be a competitive list.
This is point one, Aggro isn't competitive, as in it requires the opponents to play badly to win.
I mean the argument is dumb, okay, but I am not the best at this so it is the best I got on short notice:
Since you said we need to derive each deck from one of the archetypes, if I find a deck that falls outside of your archetypes, it is a new archetype? Right, yet you said, "Every single type of deck that exists in all of magic: the gathering can be derived from three core archetypes: Combo, Control and Aggro", so I can't make a deck that falls outside of these archetypes, right?
Point number two, There cannot be a deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.
Okay, so 99x Relentless Rats in a Phage the Untouchable deck... yeah that is my deck. It isn't aggro... it doesn't exactly win the game by swinging with creatures very fast... at all. I will admit it does have consistent draws though, and I never have to mulligan past 5 cards with it. But enough jokes, it isn't aggro, is it combo? Not really, is it control? I'd be hard pressed to find someone that told me that... I mean eventually it just dies against itself. Maybe I should mulligan to 0 cards so it takes longer to die? Whatever, the point is made, that this deck, which is a perfectly legal deck, that can even in a game if an opponent doesn't play properly and donates me some lands and a Torpor Orb for my commander or something.
Okay, so this is point number three, There is a legal deck that can win without being any of the core archetypes.
Okay, so now it is time to look over the points made:
Aggro isn't competitive
There cannot be a deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.
There is a legal deck that can win without being any of the core archetypes.
Okay, so the points have been made that contradict, points 2 and 3, so what can be done about that? Well, I guess you could say #2 should be rewritten as "[...] cannot be a good deck outside of ...", but good is very subjective, what isn't? competitive.
Now we can write it as There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.
But wait, that changes things, it means we can take away Aggro from that point in reference to point #1, Aggro isn't competitive
Hmm... well then the point, more effectively should be There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo and Control everything would fit, and it would work splendidly.
The point is, if you are willing to put stax and control together, which I agree are the same archetype at face value, I generally think of control as shorthand for permission, if we were to separate them in this point, There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Stax, and Permission, which would lead my narrative to be correct.
But wait, there is what appears to be a fallacy there! Though aggro can be dropped from point #2 and it would still work, it doesn't have to! Yes, but then we should add fishing pole as an archetype, of 99 lands, and that would be an archetype, it isn't aggro, nor is it control, nor combo, unless you pick a really weird commander... pick Phage the Untouchable and run 99 Wastes and call it a day. It fits, so lets add a hundred extra archetypes, oh yeah, because of the point number four I haven't mentioned:
"Every single type of deck that exists in all of magic: the gathering can be derived from three core archetypes: Combo, Control and Aggro"
See the word three, not four, despite fishing pole being a completely valid archetype (I don't know where I come up with this garbage), so I must assume you just haven't heard of it. In that case, you must have done the minimum amount that includes all of the ones that you deemed important, or required. This is the final point:
Any core archetype that is not required is not a core archetype in regards to point #2.
This is my conclusions, that only control (including both stax & permission) and combo exist as core archetypes in EDH.
PS: this took way too long to write, I regret this slightly.
1 month ago
You can not play two at the same time. One will go on the stack, resolve, die, then the other one will be placed on the stack, resolve, and die. You'd have to play a Relentless Rats or another 2/2 rat or larger first so that Pack Rat entered as a 2/2. Also, if you're ignoring the play set rule, you might as well just run 60x Chancellor of the Dross. Game over.
1 month ago
2 months ago
I agree with the other points DrkNinja makes thought with the exception of the commander as Marrow-Gnawer has great synergy with Rat Colony as I mentioned earlier. If you plan on switching to Relentless Rats then Marrow-Gnawer gets a lot worse and could be replaced for Sidisi, Undead Vizier. More rats are definitely a must maybe 40 Rat Colony or Relentless Rats? The stone card is also a must for obvious reasons. Sorry for the double post!
2 months ago
Relentless Rats costs one more mana so it’s not a strict upgrade over Rat Colony. Also the latter gets bigger for each rat rather than just those with the same name. This makes the commanders ablity much more meaningful. The downside of rat colony is that you just lose to stuff like Drown in Sorrow but that’s a small price to pay.
2 months ago
Thrumming Stone is a must in this deck.
Also rat decks should have more than just 28 rats, unlike shadowborn apostle decks the rats need to be a bit more.
gravepact should be in here as well, unless you are trying to go budget.
My version of this deck is much more boring... but it is probably a bit more consistent as I play with Sidisi, Undead Vizier (I know it's a flavor fail) as my commander to tutor Thrumming Stone up immediately. If you get a chance check it out Stack Dat Cheese!.
Also have you considered changing the deck name to... "I'm Beginning to Fell Like A Rat God"