Saturday, October 29, 2011
A Box of Innistrad
It was my friend Neil's birthday. His present/party to himself was having three of his friends come over for a private sealed deck tournament. It was a blast.
He bought a box of Innistrad and we each got six packs. He gave us the option to pay $15 to keep the packs or play for free as long as we gave what we opened back to him. That left 12 packs for prizes split 6-3-2-1 which he let us keep even if we played for free. We each got three matches in a round robin.
Sitting around the kitchen table eating donuts, drinking coffee, and opening fresh booster packs is an excellent way to start a Saturday.
My pool didn't have any super bombs that I had to play so I began eliminating my weakest colors. I ended up in white and blue. Here's my deck (reconstructed from memory by the way - which took me about half an hour).
White provides the removal in the form of two Bonds of Faith and a Rebuke. The main offense is three Stitched Drakes which are backed up by a variety ways to get creatures into the graveyard: two Civilized Scholars, Deranged Assistant, Forbidden Alchemy and Selhoff Occultist. I learned the power of the Silver-Inlaid Dagger in the pre-release last month so I ran both of mine. One Invisible Stalker hopes to equip the dagger and steal some games.
I ended up winning first place by the skin of my teeth. My last match was vs Kris. We were both 2-0 (all the matches were very close) and this one was for all the marbles. Game one was going ok until Olivia Voldaren shows up. She dismantled my team and smashed my face. I reflect as I shuffle up for the next game. I think my deck is a little better than his, but winning two in a row is going to be difficult. Hopefully we don't see Olivia again. All I can do is focus on the next game. Game two: Turn one Silver-Inlaid Dagger, turn two Invisible Stalker, turn three equip. He had one card in his deck which could stop that, Tribute to Hunger. I played another creature the next turn and it was over. Final game. I'm looking pretty good with a two or three fliers in play. Then guess who? Olivia the Terrible. She wipes my board and gets huge. I'm going to lose. Then I draw the only card in my deck that can save me: Rebuke. She swings, she dies. I draw some Stitched Drakes, make a few copies with Cackling Counterpart and seal the deal.
I traded all the good stuff in my prize packs for some classic loot: a 4th edition Wrath of God and a beautiful revised Sol Ring.
It's not if we're going to this again, but when. Next time maybe I'll host. I highly recommend splitting a box with a few friends for your own Kitchen Table Invitational.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Turbo Xerox Rule
Notice anything odd about this deck?
Only 14 lands. Fourteen!? I've never seen a land count that low. A standard midrange deck should run 24 lands. Control decks need a few more and aggro decks can use less. But the minimum I've seen is 17, and that's for very aggressive Goblin and Infect decks. At first I thought the list had a typo. Then I thought maybe that deck was just super inconsistent. Then SpikeBoyM over at PDCMagic, in a roundabout way, taught me a little history lesson. He said, "I encourage you to read everything out there about Turbo-Xerox".
I dug up what I could about this mysterious "Turbo Xerox".
Our first reference is an email from 1997:
Subject: Re: A Chance With Common Cards?
From: Alan Comer
Date: 1997/06/27
Even without weatherlight, it is possible. The deck I took 2nd place in the So. Cal Regionals had no rares. It was more by coincidence than by design. Around here, it has been dubbed the Turbo Xerox deck, as everybody copied it due to the lack of rares.
4 x Force of Will
3 x Dissipate
4 x Counterspell
4 x Powersink
4 x Memory Lapse
4 x Foreshadow
4 x Portent
4 x Impulse
4 x Suq-ata Firewalker
4 x Waterspout Djinn
4 x Man-o-War
1 x Dream Tides
17 x Islands
The important thing to remember with this deck is that early on, you MUST use the library manipulation to get to your land. Later, you can use it to get to cool spells. Things like: I portent your library. I foreshadow away your good spell...
The library manipulation he's referring to are the cheap cantrips Portent, Impulse, and Foreshadow.
Mike Flores wrote about this deck in 2005:
Looking back over newplan's deck we see:
One mana cantrips:
2 Brainstorm
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Preordain
Two mana cantrips:
4 Cloud of Faeries
2 Gush
4 Think Twice
Ten one mana cantrips and ten two mana cantrips.
20 cheap cantrips / 4 = 5 sets of cheap cantrips.
5 sets * 2 lands = 10 lands saved.
24 lands -10 lands = 14 lands.
Like I said, I've never seen that before, but it makes sense. I guess most Storm builds operate on the same principle.
I wonder what Alan Comer would think about pushing the rule to that far of an extreme. To me the concept makes sense in general but I have to feel it starts to break down at some point. This is just conjecture, however. Another very important point is the Delver deck is fully operation on two lands. You can't put five drops in a 14 land deck no matter how many cheap cantrips you have.
Another thing to watch out for: You need to have plenty of one mana cantrips. If you only have two mana cantrips then you run the risk of never getting to two lands. This deck has the nice even split though.
This is definitely an expert level deck-building trick, but it's good to understand. I don't see myself building any 14 land decks in the immediate future, but I've often struggled with finding four slots for a set of Ponders. Armed with the knowledge of the Turbo Xerox Rule I can cut two lands making a full set of Ponders only cost two slots! Early you dig for land and late you dig for business spells. Very cool.
Patrick Chapin provides some interesting additional insight into Turbo Xerox in this article.
Delver Blue by newplan. 4-0 Daily Event 2925834 | ||
4 Cloud of Faeries 4 Delver of Secrets 4 Ninja of the Deep Hours 4 Spellstutter Sprite 2 Brainstorm 4 Counterspell 2 Curse of Chains 4 Daze 2 Echoing Truth 4 Gitaxian Probe 2 Gush 2 Intervene 4 Preordain 4 Think Twice 14 Island |
Only 14 lands. Fourteen!? I've never seen a land count that low. A standard midrange deck should run 24 lands. Control decks need a few more and aggro decks can use less. But the minimum I've seen is 17, and that's for very aggressive Goblin and Infect decks. At first I thought the list had a typo. Then I thought maybe that deck was just super inconsistent. Then SpikeBoyM over at PDCMagic, in a roundabout way, taught me a little history lesson. He said, "I encourage you to read everything out there about Turbo-Xerox".
I dug up what I could about this mysterious "Turbo Xerox".
Our first reference is an email from 1997:
Subject: Re: A Chance With Common Cards?
From: Alan Comer
Date: 1997/06/27
Even without weatherlight, it is possible. The deck I took 2nd place in the So. Cal Regionals had no rares. It was more by coincidence than by design. Around here, it has been dubbed the Turbo Xerox deck, as everybody copied it due to the lack of rares.
4 x Force of Will
3 x Dissipate
4 x Counterspell
4 x Powersink
4 x Memory Lapse
4 x Foreshadow
4 x Portent
4 x Impulse
4 x Suq-ata Firewalker
4 x Waterspout Djinn
4 x Man-o-War
1 x Dream Tides
17 x Islands
The important thing to remember with this deck is that early on, you MUST use the library manipulation to get to your land. Later, you can use it to get to cool spells. Things like: I portent your library. I foreshadow away your good spell...
The library manipulation he's referring to are the cheap cantrips Portent, Impulse, and Foreshadow.
Mike Flores wrote about this deck in 2005:
The principle of the original Xerox deck is that for every four 1-2 mana cantrips, you can remove two lands. Therefore, even though Alan played only 17 actual Islands, the Foreshadows, Impulses, and Portents raised his effective count considerably. In the early game, Alan would have to use his cantrips to find land, but in the late game, he could use them to always have a counter in hand."I'll call this the Turbo Xerox Rule.
The Turbo Xerox Rule
For every four 1-2 mana cantrips, you can remove two lands.
Looking back over newplan's deck we see:
One mana cantrips:
2 Brainstorm
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Preordain
Two mana cantrips:
4 Cloud of Faeries
2 Gush
4 Think Twice
Ten one mana cantrips and ten two mana cantrips.
20 cheap cantrips / 4 = 5 sets of cheap cantrips.
5 sets * 2 lands = 10 lands saved.
24 lands -10 lands = 14 lands.
Like I said, I've never seen that before, but it makes sense. I guess most Storm builds operate on the same principle.
I wonder what Alan Comer would think about pushing the rule to that far of an extreme. To me the concept makes sense in general but I have to feel it starts to break down at some point. This is just conjecture, however. Another very important point is the Delver deck is fully operation on two lands. You can't put five drops in a 14 land deck no matter how many cheap cantrips you have.
Another thing to watch out for: You need to have plenty of one mana cantrips. If you only have two mana cantrips then you run the risk of never getting to two lands. This deck has the nice even split though.
This is definitely an expert level deck-building trick, but it's good to understand. I don't see myself building any 14 land decks in the immediate future, but I've often struggled with finding four slots for a set of Ponders. Armed with the knowledge of the Turbo Xerox Rule I can cut two lands making a full set of Ponders only cost two slots! Early you dig for land and late you dig for business spells. Very cool.
Patrick Chapin provides some interesting additional insight into Turbo Xerox in this article.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Aesthetics Matter
A Magic card can viewed as having two parts: functional and non-functional. The functional part of a card is what affects the gameplay: mana cost, card type, and rules text. The non-functional part is everything else: artwork, flavor text, name, or the aesthetics.
Players often evaluate cards based on functional properties only. A "good" card is a powerful card. This makes sense because most players play the game to win (myself included). However, sometimes I think it's interesting to evaluate cards from a game design perspective. From this viewpoint a "good" card generally means a "fun" card, since a game's purpose is to be fun. The functional properties of a card are extremely important for determining if a card is fun. It's not the artwork that makes people hate Stasis. However, I think aesthetics play an important, though more subtle, role in what makes a card "good" from a design perspective.
Compare Doom Blade to Go for the Throat. Functionally they are very similar. Aesthetically, at least as far as I'm concerned, they aren't even close. The artwork and flavor text on the two are somewhat comparable. The latest version of Doom Blade doesn't even have flavor text (doesn't need it), but what makes "Go for the Throat" fail is the name. You can imagine a Black Mage casting a "Doom Blade" to obliterate a Serra Angel. It's pure death in huge, magical blade form. Now I'm going to cast "Go for the Throat"? Or maybe I'm just going to "Go for the Throat"? Or maybe I'm going to send that evil looking elf lady to do it for me? Imaginary wizard dueling aside, players still have to talk about the cards. "I doom bladed the angel". "I was saving my doom blade". You know how players refer to Go for the Throat? GFTT.
Another black removal comparison: Grasp of Darkness vs Victim of Night. Can you guess which one I like more? For this comparison I think the artwork is hands down in favor of Grasp. Looking at Victim... What, did he get mugged in a back alley? Or is he kneeling on a red mat? While "Victim of Night" isn't as bad a name as "Go for the Throat", I'd much prefer casting Grasp of Darkness. What's most interesting about this comparison, however, is the aesthetics of the rules text. This matters too. "Target creature gets -4/-4 until end of turn." Bam. Done. Elegant. Compare to (hold on let me look it up) "Destroy target non-Vampire, non-Werewolf, non-Zombie creature." Grasp of Darkness "consumes" four points of life from a creature. Victim of Night reads like an if-else block in a computer program. Calculating if I can make you a Victim of Night... are you a non-Vampire creature? Yes. Are you a non-Werewolf creature? Yes. Are you a non-Zombie creature? Yes. OK, then you're going to bleed on the wall.
Aesthetics matter, and it's good to talk about something that normally doesn't get a lot of attention. I act like I mathematically evaluate every card based on the functional properties, but you know what? I don't own any Go for the Throats and I never really thought about the ratio of artifact vs non-artifact creatures.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Chandra and Friends
EDIT 9/15 (list shows latest version):
-1 Moltensteel Dragon
-2 Kessig Wolf
-1 Grim Lavamancer
+4 Reckless Waif
I realized how important one drops are to enable the Berserker. Waif is really good.
My first deck of the new Standard season! I decided to build this deck when I realized I could pick up Chandra, the Firebrand for about six tickets and Chandra's Phoenix for one each. If you don't know, tickets are the de facto currency in MTGO and can be purchased for one dollar each.
A quick aside. I play Standard in the casual room online and like to build my own budget friendly, but "competitive" decks. Of course, budget decks rarely can compete with top tier tournament decks, so I don't mean competitive in that sense, but rather, competitive as possible given my budget restraints. It's almost like I play a "Budget Standard" format in which I build a deck that doesn't break the bank and try to win in the casual room. I enjoy doing this because it's cheaper, I see a much more diverse metagame as opposed only top tier decks, and I get to build my own decks since there are no decklists to copy for my imaginary format. Everybody has their own ideas of what the "casual" in "casual room" means and to me it's this.
Anyway, I put this deck together for about 25 tix. Half of that was for two copies of Chandra, and most of the rest was the Phoenixes and Lavamancers.
I think the heart of the deck consists of Stormblood Berserker and Chandra's Phoenix. Both are excellent aggressive creatures. The Wardrivers and Kessig Wolves provide some other decent attackers. The Lavamancer is interesting. As far as I'm concerned his first and most important role is to be a 1/1 one drop, and swing on turn two to enable bloodthirst on the berserker. Of course he also has the whole repeatable burn thing for which he is famous.
I actually picked up the dragon for a previous deck, which was a failed experiment, but I decided to throw him in at the top of the curve to see what happened. I was really impressed. For starters, I almost never pay six mana for him. He can come in as early as turn four. This means on turn five, assuming he survives until then, he swings for four plus however much mana you want to pay plus however much life you want to pay. His "phyrexian firebreathing" is extremely effective in a mono-red aggro deck since I have nothing but red mana to spend and don't care much about losing life. I've had games were absolutely nothing went right except I stuck this guy then attacked twice for about eight each and finished the game with a burn spell. He absolutely can win the game by himself and it doesn't take long to do so.
This brings us to Chandra herself. No, she doesn't bury your opponent under card advantage or crush him or her with endless beast tokens, but I really like her. Being able to pick off one toughness creatures, or provide an extra point of damage to a blocker, or just ping the opponent is nice, but copied burn spells is where it's at: Arc Trail can take down a Titan or take or take out four creatures. Even a Shock can deal with a major threat and a doubled Brimstone Volley targeting your opponent can win out of nowhere. She also has the threat to go ultimate. Like most plansewalkers she just provides you with a lot of good options. Also, the her synergy with her Phoenix and the Berserker is hard to ignore.
The suite of burns spells is pretty straightforward. At first I had Fireball instead of Arc Trail, with dreams of x=8 doubled fireballs, but I think Arc Trail is right. I never really like to see Fireball early and since this deck tries to end the game early I generally wasn't happy with it. I always seem to find an good use for Arc Trail however. I really like the newcomer Geistflame. It's my burn spell of choice to trigger a Phoenix or Berserker.
I think Chandra's Phoenix is the best card in the deck. A 2/2 hasty flier for three is good. The "rebirth" puts it over the top. Stormblood Berserker is a crusher too, however. Never cast it without bloodthirst.
I started tracking each of my deck's wins and losses. Remember this is the casual room with my arbitrary budget restriction so it doesn't mean a whole lot. It's mainly to give me an idea of my decks' releative strengths. That being said, this one is currently at 17-7.
If I wanted to put a little more money into this one I'd look at including Shrine of Burning Rage and maybe Slagstorm.
Try it out! Let me know how it goes, and remember The Philosophy of Fire.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Vampire Nighthawk
Standard has rotated, Innistrad pushes out Zendikar, and I'll miss no card more than this one. From a design perspective it's really a beautiful card. Put three pre-existing abilities on an appropriately sized creature and somehow it creates a perfect representation of a "Vampire Shaman". Set the cost at a very efficient three mana and now you have "Awesome Vampire Shaman" - all using established mechanics. The excellent art completes the package.
I remember when this was previewed people were flipping out. "ZOMG! POWER CREEP!!!". I remember hearing the term mini-Baneslayer. I'm OK with a little power creep if it means I get this guy. It's not like he dominated the tournament scene like, say, Bloodbraid Elf. Vampire Nighthawk embodies efficiency. You can compare him to most any three drop in the format and see this. My personal favorite comparison is to Mindless Null.
I played the Nighthawk in blue/black and mono-black decks. Both were midrange and both heavily relied on the Nighthawk. In fact, after playing with it enough I began to realize the huge importance of a good three drop in a midrange deck. It needs to do two things: slow down aggro decks and put pressure on control decks. The Nighthawk did both exceptionally well. There is nothing worse than trying to attack into a nighthawk with a bunch of goblins, and vs slower decks a four point life swing each turn demands attention. Equip the him with the excellent Trusty Machete and things got scary. His presence on the board was so important I started running Spell Pierce to protect him.
I think I just like blue/black midrange decks because even without my all-star I'm going for it again this season. His replacement? Phyrexian Crusader. Yeah, he's good, but... fingers crossed for M13 Return of the Nighthawk!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Synergy vs Power
I've been playing Magic for three years now. I've built a lot of decks during this time and I almost always valued synergy over individual card power. This is a mistake.
"Synergy may be defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable" (Wikipedia).
I'm going to define power as the effect a card has on the game. Powerful cards have a large effect on the game in your favor.
I have to bring up metamorph's article again. Reading this really was a turning point for me. In it he says:
The power level of a deck is directly related to the power level of the individual cards that the deck is composed of. Synergy enhances this further, but at the most fundamental level the standalone power of each card in the deck is extremely important. While it is possible to build decks where the Synergy of card interactions allows for otherwise weak cards to become powerful this is an exceptional case and must be justified independently. The most common case is that independently powerful cards are the best choice for building a deck.
He goes on to talk about consistency and dependency. These are all releated. In this article I'm going to focus on the relationship between synergy, power, consistency, and dependency.
Let's start with a simple example of synergy. Consider Thran Golem and Oakenform. By itself Thran Golem is a 3/3 creature for five. Not too exciting. Oakenform by itself actually does nothing, you can't even cast it. Put them together however and you get an 8/8 with flying, first strike, and trample.
Another example of synergy is Grand Architect. To get the most of him you need other blue creatures and you need big expensive artifacts. I built many different decks around this guy but I was never really happy with them. It always seemed like it should work (so much synergy!) but never really did. Sure, sometimes I got a turn four steel hellkite and won, but most the time the hellkite got blown up, or I didn't draw it, or I'd be stuck with a hand of four six drops and no way cast them, or my turn three and turn four architect got blown up. The deck has a lot of potential power, but I was losing a lot more than I wanted to. I very slowly began to realize my problem was dependency.
With synergy comes dependency, and the problem with dependency is we play a randomized game. We build a deck of 60 cards, shuffle it up, and draw seven. Then we draw one per turn. What's the average number of cards you see in a Magic game? Seven in opening hand, say the game goes ten turns, thats ten more, say you draw three extra. Twenty? Is that average? I don't know, but it's probably a decent guess. You play with a random one third of your deck. Not only do you only see a third of your deck, but you get a third of you deck in random order. Your seven drop could be in your opening hand, you could draw your Llanowar Elves on turn ten. It's chaos out there. Not only that, this is a two player game, and your opponent is trying to screw you up. You think he's going to sit around and let your Grand Architect continually grant you huge amounts of mana? No. He's going to Incinerate / Doom Blade / Dismember / Oblivion Ring it. Chaos. This is why dependency is bad.
High dependency means low consistency. There is a very high hidden cost when playing with cards that are only powerful in combinations. If your deck relies on card combinations and you don't draw the right cards at the right time, or your opponent disrupts your plan, then you are going to be in trouble, and since the game is random and good opponents will try to disrupt you, this is generally not a good plan.
This is a good time to briefly mention why we play magic. Well, everyone is different of course. If your goal is to build new synergies that other people haven't thought of, then by all means go for it. There is something attractive about valuing synergy. Perhps it's the inner Johnny. It's fun to see a combo or theme and build an entire deck around it. It's exciting to see your synergy work, to see your plan come together. It's a creative process to put together new synergies that other people aren't using. If, however, you goal is to build decks that win more over time then these dependecies can get in your way. I try to build decks that win. That isn't my only criteria, but it's much more important to me than building unique synergies. Once I realize this I can move on towards reaching my goal.
I'm changing the way I build decks. Away from focusing first on synergy and towards focusing on individual card power, towards focusing on effciency, resilience, disruption, and a solid mana base. I will aim to reduce dependency and maximize consistency. I like the term disruption instead of metamorph's "interactivity", but it's the same thing: screwing up your opponent: removal, discard, bounce, counters, etc. Resilience is how difficult a deck or card is to disrupt.
Synergy brings dependency and dependency is bad, but you can't ignore power that synergy can bring. Many top decks use heavy synergy: The entire combo deck type, Merfolk, Fairies, Tempered Steel, etc, etc. Synergy can be very powerful; I think this is another reason why it is so tempting to go down that path. Maybe it's like this: Power (using good cards) is your deck building foundation. Synergy is a layer of additional power on top. Focus first on power. I imagine it's like learning the fundamentals of a sport before learning the the flashy stuff, or mastering the basics of your instrument before trying to play really fast. Also, for each good deck you see using heavy synergy there is one (or more) that doesn't. All kinds of decks whether aggro, mid-range, or control simply use the best cards in the format.
I've spent so much time focused on synergy that I'm banning anything but the lowest grade synergy and dependency in my decks. I need to spend some time mastering the basics. Instead of building my deck around a card, a group of cards, a mechanic, or even a theme, I'm going to decide on colors and speed (aggro, mid, or control) then cram it with the best cards I can find (afford). I imagine now I have an old and cranky deck-building coach. He constantly is muttering about power, consistency, manabase, resilence, and disruption and views all this new-fangled synergy and combo as garbage. "Bah! More like dependency! Who needs it? Not anybody that wants to win! I've been building decks for 32 years and let me tell you what you need to win: power, consistency, manabase, resilience, disruption..."
I'm sure I'm overcompensating a bit, but that's ok. I want to master the basics and unlearn what I have learned. Only then will I be ready to return to the deceptive power of synergy.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
gb-post
A few weeks ago Cloudpost was banned from Modern. Here's what developer Erik Lauer had to say about it:
The threat of facing decks which could generate fifteen or more mana each turn starting on turn four kept a lot of different decks out of the tournament, greatly reducing the diversity. There are alternatives for people who wish to play mana-ramp decks, but they do not appear to be as crushing.Now, that's Modern and this is Pauper. Of course there is a big difference. Mainly they have Vesuva. Combined with Cloudpost and Glimmerpost this makes "12post". Pauper just gets "8post". Another important difference is what you can cast with huge amounts of mana in each format. Despite the differences between formats Cloudpost enables a similar "crushing" in both.
Case in point: I put together a solid Pauper control deck with Twisted Abomination as my main finisher. After a few games I ran across a "g-post" deck. He got to eight mana two turns before I could get to six. This hit me all of the sudden and realized my deck couldn't compete with his. Why? Cloudpost. It is too powerful to ignore. I was especially impressed by the green version's consistency.
However, I didn't want to play g-post. Partly because it's an existing "Top Deck" and partly because it runs so much land destruction (not very casual room friendly). I decided to take what I felt was the core of the g-post deck and fill the rest with a new color. I went with black for removal and Duress.
The manabase:
4 CloudpostI almost decided not to build this deck because I thought the mana base was too fragile. After testing I can confirm it is fragile, but I think it's stable enough to play. Just know it's a weakness of this build. If you get a bad draw you may never see a forest. I weighted it heavier towards swamps because you need to cast the black spells early (or you die). The green spells just have to wait (I've looked at some Rotations in my hand for a while). You also need double black for Justice. The Map can be used to fetch basics in a pinch.
4 Glimmerpost
8 Swamp
4 Forest
4 Terramorphic Expanse
1 Evolving Wilds
Find Cloudposts consistently:
4 Crop RotationWith four six drops and four eight drops I need to get to those Cloudposts ASAP. I like the maps because they don't require colored mana and can fetch up basic lands when I need them. Crop Rotation is brutal because it lets you bend the one land per turn rule. Two Cloudposts in a turn (at the cost of another land) can enable a Ulamog's Crusher out of nowhere.
4 Expedition Map
Find "Crushers" consistently:
4 Fierce EmpathOne of your eight Empaths or Aurochs starts the "Aurochs Stampede" which can begin as early as turn four causing major pain for your opponent. If your stampede doesn't kill him it will likely draw out all of his removal allowing your Crusher to clean up. The Empath also fetches up the Crusher of course.
4 Aurochs Herd
4 Ulamog's Crusher
Disrupt the opponent:
2 DuressThis is where black comes in. That's a pretty serious removal package, and you'll need it since you won't be doing anything the first few turns besides fiddling with your lands. Most g-post builds run walls to provide early defense (and extra mana) but green doesn't have any good removal options. A well placed Doom Blade can eliminate a threat that a Overgrown Battlement just can't deal with. I also really like being able to play Duress.
4 Doom Blade
2 Echoing Decay
3 Last Gasp
2 Evincar's Justice
Evincar's Justice is the one black card that benefits from the Cloudposts. Two damage sweepers are rare in Pauper and it's easy to imagine how casting one every turn can shutdown your opponent.
And this guy:
2 Phyrexian RagerIf I play black I like to include the Rager, but really his purpose is to help with aggro and provide some protection against Diabolic Edict and friends.
I played a bunch of games in the casual room (which is becoming less and less "casual" these days). I'll spare you the full report but provide some highlights.
Game 1: Beat a g-post deck. Why? Doom Blade.
Game 3: Swing for 18 with three Aurochs.
Game 4: Lose to rg aggro. Land troubles vs aggro is likely a loss. It's worth mentioning I only had 24 lands at this point. I eventually bumped to 25.
Game 6: T5 crusher FTW.
Game 7: Lose vs Guardian of the Guildpact + Armadillo Cloak. Not much I can do about that. I could use Snakeform or Edict in the sideboard.
Game 10: I accidentally created a classic (not pauper) game. I realized this when he drops a Kargan Dragonlord. Ah well, we'll play it out. I get a clouldpost in play. Pass the turn and he Strip Mines my only forest but I sac it to Crop Rotation in response! Then I Doom Blade his leveled up Dragonlord, untap, cast a T5 crusher. He thinks a bit and concedes. Go Pauper!
Game 11: Auroch's chain starting T5. Buyback Justice 2 for 1s. Removal tears him up. He concedes after crusher.
Game 12: No lands vs aggro and lose.
Game 13: Lose vs ur-post. He's drawing a ton and burning up my Aurochs. Flame Slash cast then digged out of the graveyard and cast again... then repeated buyback Capsize. Even if I drew a crusher it would get bounced. Dying to Capsize has to be one of the most painful deaths in Magic.
Game 16: Mull a few times, keep a one land hand, and my deck refuses to yield another land. Lose.
Game 17: He mulls to 5 then quits. I hate that. As demonstrated by the previous game I play those out (I mean I could have drawn and land and potentially stabilized).
Game 19: Vs the same ur-post guy who beat me a few games ago. This time he Mystical Teachings for an early Capsize. I throw my hands in the air. How can I compete with that? Looks like another painful death to Capize... Then I topdeck Duress. Yoink. My posts come out faster than his because of the Crop Rotation and Maps. My Aurochs and Crushers beat. He concedes. I was happy to end on this one.
I like this deck. It can win games that g-post can't, but I suspect that g-post's increased stability and consistency makes it a generally better deck. That's ok though. This is a fairly unique alternative, and there is no doubt it has some power. If you'd rather destroy creatures than lands give it a try!
Another interesting idea would be to replace all the black with white. Maybe Oblivion Ring, Journey to Nowhere, Standard Bearer, or whatever. Or even use blue instead of black and load it with counterspells.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)