Proactive or Reactive?
Standard Deck Help forum
Posted on Nov. 18, 2018, 11:02 a.m. by Fantastic_Mr_King
I'm trying to decide between 2 sideboard cards that are great against control but for very different reasons. The first is tried and true Negate. Stop my opponents threats but more importantly, in the context of my deck, force my threats through. The other card is Tilonalli's Summoner. It's cheap threat that gets better the longer the game goes and also forces my opponent to diversify their answers to deal with go wide as well as beefy threats. I would prefer to be more proactive but either option is fine as long as it leads to more wins. Any help would be appreciated. Use the deck list for context. Thank you in advanced.
Fantastic_Mr_King says... #3
The summoner may be easy to kill but it's far from weak. 1 summoner can end the game in a swing or two if it isn't dealt with immediately. And for ever removal spell they keep in to deal with it, that's one less counter spell to deal with Apex of Power or Overflowing Insight. Just food for thought. Thanks for your input.
November 18, 2018 1:58 p.m.
But they wont counter creatures if they can kill them. Summoner doesnt force a counter spell, Negate does. Also if they can draw cards they will find more answers for the summoner, while Negate can disrupt thei card advantage.
November 18, 2018 7:09 p.m.
Fantastic_Mr_King says... #5
Disrupting card advantage is a big plus over the summoner. I'll concede to that. I'm not saying the summoner forces a counter spell. I'm saying it forces a card that could be used to kill or counter something else.
November 18, 2018 7:34 p.m.
but see, then you can also argue that negate protects that something else that would be killed. if that is your only goal Dive Down is even better. you want more out of your cards though, which leads you to the real question, since both these cards get rid of a killspell, and both of them can do even more than that, which do you prefer. do you prefer defending yourself by disrupting your opponent, or do you prefer having more cannon fodder. Tilonalli's Summoner can actually win you the game if they dont have an answer to that, which is a big plus, but it can also be answered by Fungal Infection and any other killspells along that powerlevel(there are too many to mention), while negate can catch you a Vraska 6 if you are lucky, or protect one of your many big creatures. in terms of mana-efficiency, negate can save you 6 mana by saving a creature, or set your opponent back that much by countering a plainswalker or card advantage. Negate is good at helping you not lose, while Tilonalli's Summoner is decent at helping you win. it all depends on where your problem lies. do you lose from a place of power a lot, or are you on the backbone and desperate for more damage/chump blockers.
November 19, 2018 6:20 p.m.
Fantastic_Mr_King says... #7
In your example is Negate is superior overall. Thank you for your thorough argument. I was considering Tilonalli's Summoner over Negate since my deck has a somewhat low threat density, but I like your take on it. Negate it is!
November 19, 2018 8:07 p.m.
Adding more threats work in a deck that has lots of creatures to begin with. The idea is to outnumber their removal with creatures, but often times casting time and the ability to defend threats work better when working with a limited number of threats. Negate deaks with all your worst nightmares so yeah its better.
Agent_Fire says... #2
Negate would be the better choice as you as the summoner is a weak threat and your control opponents are going to keep creature removal in as the deck win through them.
November 18, 2018 12:44 p.m.