PDA

View Full Version : Relentless Corruption



Werlix
02-23-2014, 07:04 PM
There must be something I'm missing about this card but why do I see it quite often in top-level competitive decks? To me it seems pretty bad. Pay 3 to draw a card (or maybe 2 or 3 very rarely) from my opponent's deck which may or may not be in any way useful to me... I'm not being facetious by the way I genuinely think I'm missing something...

redyetiking
02-24-2014, 05:06 AM
There must be something I'm missing about this card but why do I see it quite often in top-level competitive decks? To me it seems pretty bad. Pay 3 to draw a card (or maybe 2 or 3 very rarely) from my opponent's deck which may or may not be in any way useful to me... I'm not being facetious by the way I genuinely think I'm missing something...

If you are rarely seeing it then your build is wrong. I have a deck where I can use it 3 - 6 time a game almost every game.

meetthefuture
02-24-2014, 05:16 AM
The reason people play it is because it wins mirror.

In the mirror match you are rarely able to win through your finisher troops - so there are 2 common ways of winning:
a)Siphon your opponent to death - and here corruption can snatch you an extra siphon or steal the counterspell which would not let you cast yours
b)Deck your opponent out

So there's the common situation in the mirror match where the win is defined by the number of corruptions you\opponent draw and steal from each other

Overall the longer you play - the better corruption become - you need to remembe it when designing a deck.

P.S. When I saw RC for the first time, I thought "what the hell is this? Who would ever want to put this crap in the deck?"... I was wrong

Werlix
02-24-2014, 12:15 PM
If you are rarely seeing it then your build is wrong. I have a deck where I can use it 3 - 6 time a game almost every game.

I don't play it so my "build" can't be wrong. My question was, why is it good? In this case you could share how you are able to consistently play it 4.5 times a game on average.

Werlix
02-24-2014, 12:15 PM
The reason people play it is because it wins mirror.

In the mirror match you are rarely able to win through your finisher troops - so there are 2 common ways of winning:
a)Siphon your opponent to death - and here corruption can snatch you an extra siphon or steal the counterspell which would not let you cast yours
b)Deck your opponent out

So there's the common situation in the mirror match where the win is defined by the number of corruptions you\opponent draw and steal from each other

Overall the longer you play - the better corruption become - you need to remembe it when designing a deck.

P.S. When I saw RC for the first time, I thought "what the hell is this? Who would ever want to put this crap in the deck?"... I was wrong

Hey thanks for the reply - that's a good point, in the mirror match I can imagine it being quite good.

meetthefuture
02-24-2014, 02:05 PM
Hey thanks for the reply - that's a good point, in the mirror match I can imagine it being quite good.

You're welcome - I love writing such a walls of text - it often helps me better understand the topic :)

Like the "Rubber duck debugging", if you've heard about it :)

Errantsquire
02-26-2014, 03:45 AM
There must be something I'm missing about this card but why do I see it quite often in top-level competitive decks? To me it seems pretty bad. Pay 3 to draw a card (or maybe 2 or 3 very rarely) from my opponent's deck which may or may not be in any way useful to me... I'm not being facetious by the way I genuinely think I'm missing something...

If you watched me play the last tournament I talk about Corruption quite a bit in my draw go control deck. Typically the first time you play it, it's not great however the second time it's on par with Oracle Song, and the 3rd time it's ridiculous. In a deck that wants to stall and typically doesn't have many threats of it's own I've found it to be an all star player especially when combined with card draw and card filtering in the form of Peek.

Norious
03-04-2014, 07:10 AM
I remember seeing Cory commenting that relentless corruption was potentially one of the more powerful cards - thinking into the future it will still be relevant. Set 2 Set 3. Stealing cards from your opponents is future proof to me

DackFayden
03-04-2014, 11:22 AM
Relentless corruption is actually as bad as it looks. The only problem here is the Meta is dominated by control, so all matches will be long. As meetthefuture pointed out long matches = better relentless corruption.

However once aggro gets any real traction be prepared to see that card disapear from main board. Take for example the recent tourney where Xenoth Inq wasnt allowed, mono ruby had a strong showing. Playing a card that has no board impact or real CardAdv till the 3rd cast is as bad as it looks. You're general assessment is right Werlix, but with the perspective of the meta things change.

Leingod
03-04-2014, 01:18 PM
There's also the fact that all blood card draw cards have drawbacks compared to RC. Infernal Prof will never provide card advantage and can end up hurting you a ton if you get the wrong card. Pact of Pain is nice but even worse than RC against agro and not as strong in a control mirror unless you have life gain of some sort. Secret Lab doesn't create real card advantage and is an artifact when arti destruction is getting more commonplace.

Gwaer
03-04-2014, 10:46 PM
I think the biggest problem with people's opinions of cards like relentless corruption, or inquisition, etc. Is that they look at it through the lens of MTG, and all of the possible cards in MTG, this is set 1. before Hex has even a fraction of the number of individual unique cards that magic has printed all of set one will be out of rotation. Potentially some of them may or may not be reprinted, but for the first set, instead of every card being competitive with MTG standards, there just has to be enough ambiguity in the meta to allow for many successful deck types.

DackFayden
03-05-2014, 01:47 AM
I think the biggest problem with people's opinions of cards like relentless corruption, or inquisition, etc. Is that they look at it through the lens of MTG, and all of the possible cards in MTG, this is set 1. before Hex has even a fraction of the number of individual unique cards that magic has printed all of set one will be out of rotation. Potentially some of them may or may not be reprinted, but for the first set, instead of every card being competitive with MTG standards, there just has to be enough ambiguity in the meta to allow for many successful deck types.

Am I sensing a Gwaer #ThisIsntMTG !?!?!

Anyways I think you're bringing up a very good point. Criticisms of cards should focus on how the card is in the meta that's developed. With Relentless corruption here is the thoughtflow I went through:

1) Inception: Card in vacuum

1st cast, t3 no board impact no CA. 2nd cast at best t4, again no board impact I doubt you can play a 1 resource drops. So I would say 2nd cast would be best around t5/6. By then if you're a control deck is RC really the card you want in that spot?

So on inception, card in a vacuum RC is bad, real bad

2) Meta developing: Control rises

Xenoth inquisitor/extinction/general sapphire shenanigans make control the new meta

3) Reevaluate RC in context of Meta:

Long matchups versus creature removal heavy decks. Control decks are reactive, they focus on answering early-mid threats. But with RC you can make those early/mid board answers dead cards, because RC has no board presence. Since all games go on long escalation has a chance to... escalate. So RC is playable and viable in control matchups, which is pretty much all there is with some combo sprinkles.

On that note though RC is the most useless card in a combo or aggro matchup. You stole a dwarve/doppleganger/gearsmith/chargebot/volcannon/Pterobot? Who cares I'm still comboing off. You drew a burn from my deck on t3? Have fun taking 5+ on board. RC is a very institutional card and should be usually sideboard material, but again this meta is all control so its in the maindeck.

My verdict: RC is bad, but dat meta though

Gwaer
03-05-2014, 02:09 AM
You're evaluating it in the worst possible light, we're just going to have to agree to disagree I think. RC is fantastic vs combo, depending on how fast they get their tech online. Aggro can be a problem even with XI backing it up, but that's good too. Nothing should dominate every possible matchup or it would warp the format. A good RC control deck has a good chance vs aggro, but most of the time, even with XI a fast ruby deck can do very well. If not outright win. If the meta is heavy aggro I'd probably not play my creature less RC deck, but if it's heavy combo? I absolutely would.

also, to be clear. My issue with your this isn't magic BS, was that you were just throwing it out there constantly with no useful explanation. A lot of things from magic are in fact applicable, some things are not.

DackFayden
03-05-2014, 05:50 AM
You're evaluating it in the worst possible light, we're just going to have to agree to disagree I think. RC is fantastic vs combo, depending on how fast they get their tech online. Aggro can be a problem even with XI backing it up, but that's good too. Nothing should dominate every possible matchup or it would warp the format. A good RC control deck has a good chance vs aggro, but most of the time, even with XI a fast ruby deck can do very well. If not outright win. If the meta is heavy aggro I'd probably not play my creature less RC deck, but if it's heavy combo? I absolutely would.

also, to be clear. My issue with your this isn't magic BS, was that you were just throwing it out there constantly with no useful explanation. A lot of things from magic are in fact applicable, some things are not.

Have you played against a dwarves deck with RC before? I get the feeling you haven't. Some information so you know the flavors of dwarves decks.

-Chime of Zodiac (popular, probs just flavor of the month not that great imo)
-Eternal gaurdian/Ramp (Seen a couple when doppleganger first came out, kinda faded a bit but still around)
-Ingenuity Engine/Volcannon (Not that popular, but my personal fav)

If you have then tell me how exactly was RC useful? and if you find yourself saying "I stole a combo peice" be aware thats not valid since with a random deck that combo piece might as well have been at the bottom of the deck, same mill-not-that-good logic. Do expand though on how RC is good versus combo. I may be missing something there that you see. Like actually explain or give me a situation.

On RC v aggro, most of the the time between XI and extinction you have all the time you need to develop ANY control strategy. But I'm glad you acknowledge that's a bad matchup due to no board impact. I feel you would actually sideboard them out if it was possible there. (If the ruby deck is fast enough even oracle song gets sideboarded out)

If you think you're evaluating it in a different light then do share that light. I've only seen your meta-logic for RC being *good*, what makes you say its good/decent/playable/notbad in aggro or combo or even midrange. Please explain I want to hear it

Gwaer
03-05-2014, 12:23 PM
Instead of arguing about it, how about we play several games with some different decks and I'll show you what I like about RC, and the decks that it enables.

DackFayden
03-05-2014, 02:29 PM
Oh that sounds like a fun way to figure out what you're saying. But you know what would be more helpful, if you didn't view it as an argument and more as a discussion. I'm sensing a little negativity. You made a good point with the meta-logic, but I and others don't see where your assertion in combo matchups is coming from.

Care to provide your perspective on that? She'd your light. So far I've heard and agree with the low cardadv, no board presence, high resource investment arguments. Please try and explain your vote.

Gwaer
03-05-2014, 03:04 PM
How can I tell you how it is useful more than I already have in various threads, you say it is terrible vs combo, and then back that up by saying that getting a piece of their combo is worthless, when it is more than that, you have denied them a piece of their combo, in some ways it's a counterspell that targets a future card, and then lets you have it to play instead. It's the best card advantage available in the game, hands down. if you only cast it three times during a game that is equivalent to casting 3 oracle songs in blood, which is fantastic when paired with oracle songs of your own when running B/S. The card allows you to run a completely creatureless deck, with less resources than you would otherwise when running a wincon like life siphon. Plus anything you pull out of your opponents deck the opponent has been denied, if it you play it and it trades with something he has played, that's killing they guys board presence with his own gas. Basically RC fills many different roles in a single card, which when added together with cards that you can only cast 4 times, IE oracle song, counterspell, any non escalating card gets you more of those effects than you could otherwise manage since you are limited to only 4.

Add into that the fact that you can be pulling other other players Counterspells or oracle songs, or anything you didn't want to see used against you, and then you can choose to treat those cards as either milled, and never play them, or utilize them yourself. It's a fantastic card. I've laid all of this out in the past all across various threads. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative. But it doesn't wash logically to say that a card dominates a mirror match, but cannot assist at any other time, especially when that card makes anything you draw with it castable in your primary color.

Finally it enables card synergies that shouldn't exist. Effectively you can have the pretty reliable resource base of a 2 shard deck, and then play 4 or 5 shards, depending on what you're pulling from your opponent.

DackFayden
03-05-2014, 04:11 PM
Alright now we're getting somewhere. I see some parts of where you're coming from, but I see flaws with other parts.

"getting a piece of their combo is worthless...in some ways it's a counterspell that targets a future card, and then lets you have it to play instead"

Playing it intending to "steal a piece from their combo" from a randomized 50+ card deck isnt very (if at all) reliable. The idea of a counter spell that targets a future card is like saying mill is a counter spell that targets a future card. The question here is would you say mill is a counterspell that targets future cards? would you? Now I also want you to imagine getting an opponents volcannon/ingenuity engine/any dwarf in their deck/Pterobot/Doppleganger/Charge-bot, how useful is that piece to you? Yeah they don't have it, but they still have their draw step and gas in their hand. Game wasnt impacted too hard.

"if you only cast it three times during a game that is equivalent to casting 3 oracle songs in blood, which is fantastic when paired with oracle songs of your own when running B/S"

Casting 3 RCs in one game with no draw/card selection is very difficult and is accomplished late in the game. But lets say we combo it with sapphire, now we have draw selection and we can oracle songs all day, Nice, oh wait there's a problem here. RC is 3 resources and so is Oracle song. Neither impacts the board so in order to do this you need a deck that can make games grindy. Grindy decks goes back to your meta-logic, that was on point. Since decks that aren't trying to kill you by turn 4 or even 6 are dominating the meta you have time to build CardAdv instead of board presence. Remember how in magic its common to side out CardDraw versus aggro because speed is an issue. RC has a worse speed problem than oracle song.

"The card allows you to run a completely creatureless deck, with less resources than you would otherwise when running a wincon like life siphon."

Now here is some gold. RC does allow for more deckbuilding options. It is a fun Johnny card. It begs to be broken and pushed. I've been trying with some ideas, but I don't think the tools are out there yet. Although once I again I do agree RC does allow creative players to be risky with their resource base and deck constitution.

"Plus anything you pull out of your opponents deck the opponent has been denied, if it you play it and it trades with something he has played, that's killing they guys board presence with his own gas."

I've already address the problem with "I'm denying opp a card logic". But for the 2nd part lets do some math. 1st cast of RC (Me-1 card) -> I get a troop(Me + 1card) -> I play said troop -> opp plays troop -> trade with opp troop(Me-1 opp-1 card) --> Sum it up (Me -1 opp -1, but Me spent 3 extra resources). Psychologically yeah you just killed his dude with his own dude. But you spent more resources and didn't gain any CA. Now on second cast you get that oracle song effect and you'll end up +0-Me -1-opp but then again you spent those 3 extra resources.

"Add into that the fact that you can be pulling other other players Counterspells or oracle songs, or anything you didn't want to see used against you"

Yeah we're agreed that its good in control mirrors. But be careful about the "...didn't want to see used against you" mentality. People play 60 card randomized decks here do you really want to weigh that factor in to a cards power?

Overall:

I think if you focus less on the psychological aspect of the card and more on the math that's actually going on you might get a glimpse of why RC is indeed a "bad" card. Its not as terrible as some people make it out to be because, like has been said before, it has inevitability give this a read for background (https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/academy/36). Inevitability is a key part of a control deck (FYI in aggro "Reach" tends to be the counterpart). in HEX currently there are other ways to get inevitability I'd play over this (of the top of my head Eldritch dreamer).

Out of curiosity do you run RC in any non-control decks? be honest. Personally I have a riksay combo deck I've been forcing, but RC is still bad there.

Gwaer
03-05-2014, 04:32 PM
Yea, you missed most of my points. We're not really getting very far. None of the arguments I made had anything to do with psychological impacts. The steal a piece of their combo point, is your counterpoint, not my point. RC is very strong against combo decks, when built in an appropriate deck where you already have some answers for their combo, IE counterspell, because counterspell can be used to actually target important pieces that are coming online, while RC can passively remove them. I never in any way said that RC > Combo, I said RC works fantastically in decks VS combo. Any of those cards could be useful to you. But even the ones that aren't useful, you can just consider milled instead. The fact that it's a mill that lets you choose to use the card or not makes it better than straight up mill, and them losing any piece of their combo has the potential to slow them down, moreover the second you take any piece of the combo, you now have an extra counterspell to use on something else. They have 4 pieces, you could counterspell all 4, or you could RC some out, and use your counterspell elsewhere. As such it effectively gained you a counterspell.

I don't really want to go over this point by point, so I'll try to be more concise.

I've already said that vs fast aggro decks a straight up creatureless control RC based deck is at a disadvantage with current card pools, that in no way makes RC a bad card.

you spent three extra resources in buffing all of your future RC's it's like saying that spending 10 resources on soul marble is a waste because it cost you 3 resources. "Psychologically yeah you just killed his dude with his own dude. But you spent more resources and didn't gain any CA." If you took a dude out of his deck, and it was a dude he put in his deck to see he now has a decreased chance of seeing it, that is math, not psychology, so now he is down 2 troops, and your next cast of the escalation card has been improved, for the cost of you being down 3 resources. It's a good trade.

I absolutely want to weigh that in the power of the card. There can only be 4 of a threat in a deck, 4 in 60, some of the wincons only run as 2 or 1 ofs, sure. but it is statistically relevant when you remove them. Same can be said for mill, and it's even better when they are wincons you can make use of yourself. Though even when it completely wiffs, and you can't ever make use of the card, they are still denied it. It's not the best part of the card by any stretch but it can make a difference.

If you want to play some games, PM me and I'll play some games with you vs some of my RC decks, you can have the last say in the thread, I see very little point in arguing about something that can be tested, and that I have tested thoroughly in the game.

Errantsquire
03-05-2014, 05:12 PM
I love Relentless Corruption. To me it is card draw, and sometimes it's even a win con to force the draw out. The first time you play it yeah you're a little behind, the second time you play it then it's on par with Oracle Song, every time after that it's just bonkers.

DackFayden
03-05-2014, 06:07 PM
@Gwaer

Seems like some of the reasons you think RC is good are what I'd call misconceptions associated with the psychological effect of the card. You missed the last part where I asked Do you actually play RC in any non-control decks. I think the power of control currently might be overshadowing your judgment of RC since playstyles aren't really punished for resource management.

The saying "1 in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" is very appropriate here. Pure mill in mtg is considered "bad" because it doesn't affect your opp hand/board card count and in general mill does nothing until you actually win (Think of how often you've seen a Nin deck run out of gas).

I'll PM you when I get online. We can play some matches / I also have some RC decks you could give me your opinion on. What time zone you represent? Same name online (Gwaer)? Although I really don't think playing a couple games can determine the overall power of a card I think it may help you see where criticisms of RC are coming from.

Gwaer
03-05-2014, 06:42 PM
I didn't miss the question, it's just irrelevant. There are many cards even in mtg that only see play in one deck type or another, it's irrelevant if the card works best in a control deck. I have tried it in a number of non control decks, some to pretty good effect, but it unquestionably fits better in control decks than others. I didn't realize you were going so far as to accuse me of liking the card just because control is strong in the current meta, Which seems pretty ridiculous to me. I actually don't play control that often most of the time when I am messing around I prefer faster decks. I'm GMT -5 US EST. However, you can message me on the forum any time, and if I'm around we'll work out a time to play.

I wouldn't put too much stock in proverbs like that in general if I were you. Few things are that simple.

Also, mill is bad in mtg because it is entirely unsupported as a wincon most of the time it's just an afterthought. Probably due to design constraints. Though, honestly going pure anything is a terrible plan. I'm not suggesting a pure mill or RC deck.

DackFayden
03-05-2014, 06:54 PM
Jesus Gwaer not everyone is out to get you here. I wasn't accusing you of liking it because of meta, I was just curious if your opinion stemmed from only playing control with it. I thought it might be a possibility the strength of control was impacting/overshadowing your evaluation of the card. Like I said before I'm sensing negativity, no one needs to be crucified here. We can have different opinions and discuss them.

That being said I'd be curious to play those non-control RC decks if you have them saved. Otherwise playing the controlly ones is fine. I also avoid control, just cuz I'm tired of seeing it and am curious the cards already exist to beat it. And I thought you meant PM online, I'll hit you up in the forums

meetthefuture
03-06-2014, 12:18 AM
I think the power of control currently might be overshadowing your judgment of RC since playstyles aren't really punished for resource management.
Control is not all that dominating at the moment, FYI

Errantsquire
03-08-2014, 04:11 AM
Also, mill is bad in mtg because it is entirely unsupported as a wincon most of the time it's just an afterthought. Probably due to design constraints. Though, honestly going pure anything is a terrible plan. I'm not suggesting a pure mill or RC deck.

Mill can be a negative play experience as most of the time it's non-interactive.