Is it appropriate for serious decks to use cards that mak...

[Ephraim]

Is it appropriate for serious decks to use cards that make use of the coin flip mechanic? Now, obviously, such decks are sub-optimal, since they're increasing the deck's dependence on chance. However, the chance usually yields the possibility of much greater effects. Does this fact make coin flips viable, if unusual, for serious decks?

I'm asking in the general case, but to illustrate, I'll offer an example from one of my Standard decks. My goal was to build a Goblins deck. For one, I didn't really have the resources to get Siege-Gang Commanders, Piledrivers, or Patriarch's Bidding, so the prevailing Goblin deck of the day wasn't for me. On the other hand, I did have a Goblin Goon and had open to me an opportunity to get 4 more at $1.50 apiece. I also had four Goblin Psychopaths and four Rock Jockeys availalbe, so it seemed natural to build a deck filled with Big Goblins. It took some other unusual choices, the details of which are unimportant, but I developed some workarounds for the Psycopath's drawback. There's the first coin-flipping card.

Then, when Mirrodin came out, I saw Krark's Thumb and Fiery Gambit. I realized that the Gambit could have a huge, game-breaking effect, if it worked. And it would work, 1/8 of the time, without the Thumb and 27/64 of the time with the Thumb. Not the greatest numbers, I'll admit. If I hadn't already had a deck that had a coin flipper in it, I'd have passed the Thumb and the Gambit over. However, the Thumb provided me with additional support for my Psychopaths and made the Gambit a possibility. There's the second coin-flipping card.

So there, a serious deck that includes two coin-flipping cards and Krark's Thumb. Now, if I'd had Piledrivers or any of the other above-mentioned rares, it'd be a different and probably better deck. Given that I don't have those cards, have I killed my deck's credibility as a serious deck?

[Dr. Sylvan]

Coin-flipping doesn't belong in a serious deck except by accident (ie Mana Crypt) because, like you said, it's too luck-based. Most of the coin-flip cards have pretty weak effects for their cmc anyway; the fact that it only works half the time makes it far worse. Rather than build with a giant question mark on your success, you could instead be including threats and answers that do something *for sure*. In Magic you want to be able to have control of, at minimum, what your own deck is going to do, and coin-flipping directly counters that. You can't make any elaborate plans if part of it might fail through an uncontrollable variable.

-Phil

[Razvan]

It is kinda fun though to use Fiery Gambit and the Psychopath (I love the quote on the Psychopath).

Obviously, as Dr. S. said, they aren't effective enough to be used, even with Krakh's Thumb (although you have a 75% chance of winning a flip, as opposed to 50% pre-Thumb).

But you need the extra card in play for it all to work, and thus becomes too fragile to begin with.

So for casual,  . Otherwise... get the Goons and the other goblins, they should be cheap enough.

[jpmeyer]

In order to use coinflip cards, they really have to be worth it even if you lose the flip.

[Ephraim]

Is it fair to use other cards to make them benefit you, when you lose the flip? How about cards that don't affect the loss conditions, but yield an even greater benefit, when you win? Cards that modify the chance of winning? (ie: Krark's Thumb) What if some of the cards that act to patch up the coin-flip cards help the deck anyhow?

[upinthe]

I would have to say that coin flip cards, other than the aforementioned mana crypt,  are just not worth the trouble at all. Cards like gamble, wild research, etc... are the way to go if you're looking to incorporate random powerful effects

[BreathWeapon]

ManaClash and 1 sided coins 4Life

[Razvan]

Gamble is the same as vampiric tutor (card disadvantage wise), except you get in instantly, as opposed to the chance you might not get it at all.

It's funny they didn't restrict it. Maybe because it's red?

It's obviously worse, i guess, since the fewer cards you have, the better the chance for a wasted card. Meh.

[BreathWeapon]

Actually, Gamble can be really good as your hand size decreases in Madness ... prompting them to discard a ROTW/Arrogant Wyrm/Rootwalla/Avatar or Deep Anal. Its also good in wMUD if you have an active Welder. Gamble doesn't get enough credit

Edit: Rhazvan, your quote is incomplete. You should have, "If you kill a thousand people, they call you a hero." Just noticed that.\n\n

[bebe]

Well, I can at least say that i played Krark's Thumb against Shock Wave's Landkill deck and came damn close to winning the match - I lost game three when I Desperate Gambled a Firecat. I also resolved Fiery Gambits in two matches  - winning both games. My record for the day was 2-2 having beaten Long along the way ... go figure ... first turn Chalices followed by Blood Moons are Good. In fact I got paired with really solid decks all along the way and both match losses were 1-2. Of course, main deck Chalices and Blood Moons were really the keys.
However, Krark's Thumb is total jank. Gambles are tech and if you are feeling lucky Desperate Gambits can win many a game. Would I play this deck again at a serious tournament ... definately not. It was a lark once and would be ridiculous to play twice. I played it only because I made a deal with Dicemanx to bring totally random decks to the event ( he played Eureka). Peter also went 2-2, I think.
This speaks more to the state of Type 1 than to the effectiveness of jank decks. There is no way in the world we should have won a match with these decks. It shows how we get these skewed reports of decks winning tournaments that are clearly not competitive but casual at best.

[graedus]

The only card w/the flipping coin mechanic I recall being decently competitive is Frenetic Efreet, but that was a long time ago (I want back my Taniwha/Jokulhaups deck's respect back!  )