Answers about Regeneration...

So I talked to my local Magic:The Gathering gathering place, and it was explained to me that Regeneration is essentially a shield...

...yeah, I know - it lacks pizzazz...

...but it can be activated during my turn prior to attacking as well as during someone else's turn before I assign blockers. The guy behind the counter was - let's say overly excited - and couldn't stand still long enough for a more in depth discussion about timing, Mana Burn, or much else.

See - what I love most about my Goblins is that their actions, while hilariously stupid, make a sort of twisted sense.

For example:

Goblin Ski Patrol is normally a 1/1 creature. When I spend two Mana it gets flying, +2/+0 and is buried at the end of the turn, as long as I have a Snow-Covered Mountain in play.

In other words, this guy gets his skis, climbs the Snow-Covered Mountain and ski jumps into the air to attack/block causing extra damage and then goes away.

That's funny...and makes sense.

For me to play Regeneration, it also needs to make some sort of sense. I get that I can choose to block with a creature and spend the Mana necessary to remove all damage from said creature and keep it tapped. But I just can't get my head around seeing Regeneration as a "shield".

One thing I did learn about Regeneration from playing this deck though...

Asphodel Wanderer, which I now have four of because they were in the .05 cent bins, costs three Mana to Regenerate...rather expensive - which is why there were a lot of them in the .05 cent bins. 

Drudge Skeleton, on the other hand, only costs one Mana to Regenerate. Yeah, it costs one Mana more to cast that A W, but that's a lot less Mana to leave untapped and get burned on when my turn's over. 

Good to know.

Questions about Regeneration...

I'm finding that many Skeleton-based cards have this ability, but exactly how is it played?

According to the M:TG online rules, Regeneration is explained as follows:

701.12a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case, “Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.”

701.12b If the effect of a static ability regenerates a permanent, it replaces destruction with an alternate effect each time that permanent would be destroyed. In this case, “Regenerate [permanent]” means “Instead remove all damage marked on [permanent] and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.”

701.12c Neither activating an ability that creates a regeneration shield nor casting a spell that creates a regeneration shield is the same as regenerating a permanent. Effects that say that a permanent can’t be regenerated don’t prevent such abilities from being activated or such spells from being cast; rather, they prevent regeneration shields from having any effect.

Now I'm the kind of guy who learns better by doing rather than reading, and the rules we follow at home are undoubtedly different from official play, so the only way I'll truly understand this is to see others use it and follow their lead.
At home, we play with Mana Burn, so life is lost for every unused land on the battlefield. This alone changes the strategy when dealing with spells like Regenerate.
Then there's the timing. These rules read as if I can cast Regenerate like a shield that lasts until the end of the current turn, even if I choose not to "use" said field...and therefore prevent Mana Burn. But, if I want to have that shield available during someone else's turn, I take the Burn, and then cast it when I use a given creature for defense.
Okay, fine. But do I cast this defensive spell at the beginning of their turn, or just when my creature is blocking? Does it matter? Can I use this when attacking to keep my creature on the battlefield in order to force my opponent to tap one of their creatures to open the way for another of mine?

You see my confusion?

I still think my Skeleton-themed deck could work, but I'll just have to ask some experts the next time I shop for cards.

Black Deckbuilding Preferences - Part Two...

I'm encountering some issues while building my Black deck.

Part of which was expected - the limited number of creatures available. There's nowhere near as many Skeletons as there are Goblins, so I figured I'd follow the rule of no more than four of any one card in a given deck while maintaining our agreed upon fourteen creature cards max in a 40-card deck. But which one(s)..?

Here's what I've come across so far:

Drudge Skeletons is a nice, basic 1/1 creature. It has Regenerate, but requires two Mana to cast. Not all that expensive, but not as cheap as Crazed Goblin.

Manor Skeleton, along with the 1/1, Regenerate and a 2 Mana cost, also has Haste - so it can attack when cast. That is good deal for the price. 

Reassembling Skeleton has the 1/1...the 2 Mana cost...but instead of Regenerate allows me to bring it back into play (albeit tapped) after being killed. Now we're talking. 

Urborg Skeleton is the cheapest to cast...unless you pay the kicker. Even so, the most this creature would be on its own is a 1/2 with Regenerate.

Then there's Skeleton Scavengers. I like this one because it actually grows every time it Regenerates. As it grows, I'd have to increase my Mana payment to make it even stronger, which helps with Mana Burn. A higher casting cost, but worth it.

Restless Bones has the 3 Mana cost, Regenerate (for one Mana less), and when tapped allows a different creature to have Swampwalk (for one Mana more). Okay...but now I need to find a spell that converts land to swamps.

Finally, there's Cinderbones - an Elemental Skeleton. (Why there aren't more Elemental Skeletons I don't know...) But it's a 1/1.

Why would an Elemental Skeleton be a 1/1?

Wither is cool, but I'd have to Regenerate...like a lot.

So I have some decisions to make, and more research to do, but I think this could be a very interesting deck!

Black deckbuilding preferences - Part One...

Since I'm working on an all-Black, all-Skeleton deck I thought I'd..share my method of deckbuilding.

To begin with, I play a 40-card deck. 

Now, I started playing waaay back in the day, as in 1994 - when a deck of 60 cards (with rulebook) cost all of 8 bucks. And while 60 card decks are popular, I've always found them to be too big. Let's face it - the odds of getting through even half a deck in a single game are pretty low no matter how big the deck is...60-card decks even more so because we're talking about 30 cards unused unless you've got spells that allow you to search through your library. Which is fine...unless those cards are among the "lower thirty".

Secondly, I go with what I call the Golden Ratio.

This pertains to Land, Creature and Spell cards. For a 40-card deck this equates to 17, 14 and 9 respectively. For a 60-card deck, the Ratio is 24, 21 and 15. Whenever Mrs. Adorkification builds a deck (40 or 60), she sticks to this in order to be fair amongst the three of us. I define these card types as follows: 

Land cards, obviously, are any cards that give you Mana. This includes cards like Dwarven Ruins, which aren't Basic Land cards, but still provide Mana.

Creature cards are just that - things that have a Power and a Toughness and come into play to either attack or defend. This includes Walls, which may have a Power of zero, but can still block.

Spell cards are every other type of card. Instants. Sorceries, Artifacts (but not Artifact Creatures) Enchantments, Curses, etc... 

I've played my 40-card Goblin deck against their 60's and have won some and lost some, but I've never felt a disadvantage using a smaller deck because in the end is comes down to the shuffle and the deal.

So - using these guidelines for creating my new deck, I then look to specific cards I know I want and firmly believe every deck of every size and color should have: Walls and Life Generators.

Wall of Bone fits right in with my deck scheme and theme. It's only 1/4, but has Regenerate. Yeah, it costs three Mana (I'll get to casting costs another time), but while every deck should have some type of wall in it, any wall that can give damage is a plus. While I don't have this card yet, it will cost me all of .25 cents.

Throne of Bone will do for this deck what Iron Star does for my Red Goblin deck - give me life and save me from Mana Burn. The extra beauty of both? They work for every spell cast of that color by any player...not just me. Adorkette, who's favoring an all-White deck at the moment, loves Lifelink. While that's good for gaining life, I prefer avoiding Mana Burn as well. This one will cost me upwards of .35 cents.

Have I mentioned how cool it is to have a hobby that doesn't break the bank?

So I'm building a new deck...

...and it's not as easy as one would think.

I've talked about my Red deck before, many, many, many, many, many times. It's Goblin based, and while I know it would never stand up in professional play, it's a lot of fun because Goblins are...essentially...stoopid.

But between Mrs. Adorkification's constant rebuilding of decks using whatever's lying around (she's even built several decks based on different areas of Lord of the Rings, like Lothlorien, Fangorn Forest, and The Dead Marshes), and Adorkette's continual desire to play (she's even brought decks to school for the last week of classes...not just one or two decks, try eight), I've decided to expand my horizons beyond the Mountains. But I've centered my play around a single creature type for a long time, so long in fact that I can't fathom playing any other way. Therefore, I needed to pick not just a different color for this deck but also another creature type within said color.

I thought about Blue, which I've also mentioned before, but Merfolk didn't sit right. I'll probably build a Blue deck eventually, but my focus has shifted elsewhere.

Black

Now when you consider my desire to limit myself to one character type while also sticking to one color, Black in this case, you'd think the obvious choice. But as I've also said before...

 I Hate Zombies.

Then I remembered Jason and the Argonauts...

...and the Skeletons...

...which were awesome!

So that's what I'm going with. I've done a little research and know that there's nowhere near as many Skeleton cards as there are Zombie cards...

...which is a damn shame...

...but there's quite a bit of Bone-related stuff which should do nicely until the day WotC wakes up and realizes they're standing on a gold-mine of untapped (heh heh heh...) potential.

We've been playing Magic again...

...and you know what that means..

....that's right - I've been playing goblins!

I came across a couple online that I've added to my wish list, 'cause they're so damn funny:

Goblin Bowling Team.

It's just ridiculous. It costs 4 lands to cast, and is only a 1/1 creature. However...when it does damage to anything, I'd roll 1d6 and whatever I got would be added to the regular 1 point of damage.

It's from the Unglued set and costs all of .25 cents.

Now, if I add this to my deck as well...

...Goblin Bookie...

I get to reroll that 1d6 every time I spend one Mountain! That would not only save me Mana Burn, but it would also allow me a chance to get a better roll. This card would set me back all of .15 cents.

Man I love goblins!

Now you might be wondering why we're playing M:TG again all of the sudden. Well, it's because of Adorkette. She's suddenly gotten back into it again because...

...are you sitting down? 'Cause if you're not, you'd better...

BOYS!

...

Deal me a movie...

I haven't talked about M:TG lately because I haven't been playing lately.

But I guess I have reason to talk about it more regularly...

...seeing as how FOX has bought the movie rights.

This smells a bit of desperation to me. Are they so deep in debt that they're going to make everything a franchise now?

Well - all I'm gonna say about it right now is that they damn well better have goblins in it.

'Cause as we all remember:

So...Red Wedding...

I saw one episode of this show, and it was from the first season (I think) when the Lannister Dwarf Tyrion was knocked unconscious during a battle.

The nudity (which everyone was talking about regarding this show) was almost non-existent.

The violence (which everyone was talking about regarding this show) was nowhere near the level of Kill Bill.

And every clip I've seen since has been of bearded men standing around talking.

So my passion for this show ranks right up there with Teletubbies and the Home Shopping Network.

So then this episode came out, and I just read about what the plot of the thing was today.

There's a wedding...and people die. Okay, sounds like Kill Bill 2 to me...

There was a pregnant woman present...who also died.

So now it's KB2 meets Helter Skelter...

But more interesting is that several of the most interesting heroic characters die.

And people are upset by this.

Isn't this the series of books and episodes where the main hero...the one everybody thought should win the war (or whatever) and beat the bad guys and take the crown...or throne...died in the first freaking book/episode?

I'm sorry. I just don't get it.

Watching a show where the heroes get killed, the villains win, the innocent are corrupted, the wall comes crumbling down and Winter (though coming) never freaking arrives...

...would make me gouge out my own eyes after pulling out all my hair and screaming into the television before running to the hills.

This is not entertainment. This is what Einstein described as insanity:

I'll stick to my comics thank you very much, where heroes actually win, villains lose, and Winter is actually followed by Spring.

HOWEVER...if GoT ever had Goblins in it...

...I'd reconsider.

What do you get...

...when you cross

with

?

You get this, this and this.

I'd play with these cards...