For example: Phyrexian Unlife is a much more interesting version...

Here's an interesting one: Eater of Days, Black Lotus, Forbidden Orchard

That one isn't that good.

I think its "good enough" in the lotus fatty deck genre. Its a four turn clock.

I just find it interesting because: This format skips the draw, meaning they arent getting card advantage off the extra turns. And giving them extra turns and a permanent ensures that Eater kills in two swings.

It suffers from the same weakness that any other Fatty deck suffers from, and there are better choices for the fatty. But the idea intrigues me and I mention it to see if someone can max it out.

Except you could just summon Academy Researchers with Eldrazi Conscription and have a 3 turn clock. With annihilator 2.

I like seeing what cards get brought up here. Now I'm hoping to someday, somehow, get to play Phyrexian Unlife and Glacial Chasm together.

You would need at least a 5 or 6 card hand, I think. Or a very weird alt format.

You guys realize that only works for 4 turns, right? It isn't a permalock. Phyrexian Unlife affects damage, not life loss. Glacial Chasm's cumulative upkeep is life payment. And you cannot pay life you don't have. So after paying 2 then 4 then 6 then 8 life you'll be at 0 life and phyrexian Unlife will keep you going. But then you will be unable to upkeep the Chasm and it will go away. And shortly thereafter your opponents' threats will wham you with infect damage to kill you.

Yes I realize that, but that's 4 turns over what is currently a decent 4 or 5 turns? provided by chasm in a vacuum. Basically, it would stall out for 6-9 turns where your opponent couldn't really do anything. Assuming you had a win con that could win faster.......

Trying to envision the life loss in this round is annoying me...cause I keep doing it wrong. I...am not gonna do well this round

My deck choice is inspired by last round, and that's all there is to say on the matter =D

On the subject of Unlife, if it cost 1 less mana there would probably be a quite reasonable deck based on it, but at 3 it's just barely too hard to take advantage of imo.

Here's a simple check:

X = Damage I Deal Per Turn - Number of Permanants I have

X > 0 or you can't win

The larger X is and/or the faster X grows, the better you are likely to do.

I honestly find Foil more threatening than Channex. Chan is easy to play around, much like Barren Glory. If you have no idea it's coming...it will wreck your world, if you've seen it already...ok, I can win.

Foil is at least a 3/3 against most decks. Still not terribly likely to win if people know it's an option, but it auto-wins many rounds in which it plays first.

Man Lands are good against both, double threat decks are good against both, and thank goodness Tabernacle is banned or else we could have a manland deck that was good against double threat decks.

?

Foil is a hardcore 6s and 0s deck. maybe some 2s. but it's almost entirely insensitive to play order.

be careful with manlands against Chancellor, it usually has Path.

Path or Waste both of which are good, but without Tabernacle, I suspect the manland deck will be Ink-Ink-Exalted, which is Path proof, and I dunno about the math cs Wasteland.

I think it draws wasteland. Chancellor comes down turn 9, at which point a cathedral-less manlands will have hit for 7 or 8, depending. either way it's in the lead, but Chancellor can sit back and block.

Why would I have ever thought it was a strictly worse Daze? Ugh...you're right...seems like a "play around it or lose" deck.

Edit: Also curious how valuable pro white will be here.

Why can't Force of Will be legal and Torrent Elemental cost 2 less from exile...am I asking too much here?