PDA

View Full Version : MtG Poll: Overrun or Overpower



skiboydoggy
2nd December 2005, 3:46 PM
I was thinking about deck building the other day, and I was just wondering what people liked better, and which one is better.
Overrun or Overpower.

Overrun as in how many Elf and Goblin and Soldier decks are. Have too many creatures eating at them for them to even consider blocking.

Overpower as in... Beasts and whatnot... Which means you step all over them with giant creatures, such as immense 13/13 Krosan Cloudscrapers and whatnot. These usually come with trample...

So... What do you people think...?
Yes I realise Overrun AND Power together works, but let's not go into that shall we?

Shadow Trainer
2nd December 2005, 4:33 PM
According to Gatherer, there is no card called Overpower I assume you mean Overwhelm ?

skiboydoggy
2nd December 2005, 5:21 PM
I mean the playing style, how you build your deck, and essentially what creatures you prefer.

Shadow Trainer
2nd December 2005, 5:57 PM
I like both aggro (overrun) and control (overpower) but prefer aggro.

Eon Chao
2nd December 2005, 8:08 PM
I prefer both. Orochi Hatchery+Seshiro+Sachi+Sosuke=4/4 snake tokens ^_^

Kaizer
2nd December 2005, 11:13 PM
I don't really prefer either over the other. Both have their uses and depending on what deck I'm using I can change my playing style accordingly. The problem with swarm strategies are that your creatures are so small any one big threat of theirs can wreck all of your plans; especially if you don't have the game in the bag when they play it. Also, cards like Wrath of God are much more harmful. The problem with the larger creatures is that they take time to get out and can normally be killed rather easily so I never use just one or the other. Both are really only best when used together accordingly.
;245;

klducks
3rd December 2005, 1:23 AM
Both in one deck? very delicious in deed.

Aggro first half of the game. Second game, get big behemoths out FTW!

Kaizer
3rd December 2005, 3:18 AM
It's not a very "delicious" concept. It's simply one of the basic facts of the game. Why else would a mana curve exist? You're supposed to play that way- starting out with the small cards and piling as many onto the field or in use as you can without risking a major loss, and once you hid mid-late game start playing down bigger creatures to dominate the field and take control of the game for you.

klducks
3rd December 2005, 3:43 AM
It's not a very "delicious" concept. It's simply one of the basic facts of the game. Why else would a mana curve exist? You're supposed to play that way- starting out with the small cards and piling as many onto the field or in use as you can without risking a major loss, and once you hid mid-late game start playing down bigger creatures to dominate the field and take control of the game for you.
I know. I'm just poking fun at the point of the thread.

skiboydoggy
3rd December 2005, 11:21 AM
I know its highly probable and in fact every deck builder should want to make their deck as thus, and there are a million and one ways to make small creatures huge, and large creatures cheap.
Spells like Might of the Oaks, Mythic Strength and Echoing Courage come to mind.
Abilities like Affinity to Artifacts and freaking Elvish mana freaks' as well.

Yay, I just made a pointless thread. XD

But people SHOULD have a preference right...?
RIGHT?!