With the influx of the Shadowmoor card Painter's Servant into the ring of playable vintage cards, a deck has arisen that abuses its interaction with Grindstone to mill the entire opponent's deck in one fell swoop. Because you are only devoting approximately six cards to the actual combo, the rest of the deck can be based around fun interactions. Painter's Servant turns Merchant Scroll into a sorcery-speed instant tutor, it turns Red Elemental Blast into a Vindicate, and all sorts of other fun things. The recent StarCity Games Vintage tournament had this deck in first place:
Some of the card choices here: Power, Will, Tutor, Tinker- Obvious here Gush + Fastbond- powerful card draw engine, especially when followed by Will Mana Drain- Accelerates mana while countering spells. The mana can be used for things like Gifts, et al. Darksteel Colossus- Serves as anti-mirror tech, and an alternate kill method using Tinker
Sideboard choices: Leyline, Hurkyl, Extirpate, Pyroclasm- All self-explanitory Greater Gargadon- Sac engine versus Oath and the like Ingot Chewer- A sorcery-speed Oxidize that gets around Chalice of the Void, which has been a problem card.
This thread should contain ideas and discussion regarding this deck.
(Glix- I hope that I'm correct in doing this, given its recent tournament results and popularity explosion)
Since this is only one of several variations that have been performing well, and since the combo itself is relatively new to the vintage scene, I'd like to wait a week or so so that we can better grasp the adequate placement(s) and decks that will contain the combo, for now. Once this deck has had some more testing and at least one more top 8 at a decent tournament I will consider moving its placement. For now, a top 8 at a single tournament is not enough data for us to reliably go on.
As for the deck itself, it seems a bit too focused on the actual combo. I would tone this focus down in future variations as there will undoubtedly be a surge of resistance to match the hype this combo will be receiving.
Furthermore, despite the obvious synergy, over reliance on painter will likely result in unfavorable results regarding resistance to the painter itself. Furthermore, my testing seems to indicate that overuse of blasts should be avoided. I would definitely limit blasts to 5 at maximum, but I would advise something more in the 2-4 range.
For now, a top 8 at a single tournament is not enough data for us to reliably go on.
The deck won SCG, and the ICBM open in a three week span. It has also won some big events in Europe, and made allot of top 8's despite its just being introduced to the format.
The only thing in question is the adequate build. It should be moved.
Here the combo did 2 1st places and some top 8 appearances though the build was totally different, anyway you already know i'm positive on the proposal done...just the side doesn't convince me but that's another question since side has to be adapted...and also drains maindeck seems fine for me at 2x but anyway....that's not the main point.
I agree with black_lotus °_°
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vintage nostalgic, WUB Fish control/aggro addicted.
Legacy:RUG Temur Delver
Modern: ??? undecided.
It won two tournaments, but the decks were completely different, save the combo. They employed different engines and different means to achieve the combo, which makes them fundamentally different. I mean, should we include the MUD list that top 8ed as the same deck because it uses the same kill? I wouldn't think anyone would advocate for that.
Furthermore, the deck is hardly really developed to a point except that "combo = good", since so many different engines have been testing the list.
We can hardly consider a list that did well at one tournament tier 1, particularly considering how new the combo is. We need some results and some more testing, and we need to understand the optimal configuration(s) of lists that employ the engine before we can just say "Here's a competitive thread on any deck spanning every draw engine and archetype that employs this specific kill mechanism". I mean, if two decks in extended use goyf as their win condition, are they the same deck?
I would also like to note that kill mechanisms almost never really define a deck. The draw engine and disruption packages tend to play a much heavier role in defining an archetype.
However, this is not the place for this discussion. Please PM concerns regarding thread placement. Further discussion of the location of a thread on a given thread will be reprimanded. This thread is for the discussion of the archetype proposed, and location of that thread has no bearing on the discussion, does it?
@Sonne: Actually, that is the main point. What would you suggest be altered concerning the board, and what are your specific thoughts on drain. Please embellish your thoughts so that we may further develop the deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1 Black Lotus
3 Grindstone
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
Artifact Creatures
1 Darksteel Colossus
3 Painter's Servant
Enchantments
1 Fastbond
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
4 Force Of Will
1 Gifts Ungiven
4 Gush
3 Mana Drain
3 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Vampiric Tutor
Sorceries
1 Demonic Tutor
3 Merchant Scroll
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Tinker
1 Yawgmoth's Will
2 Island
Lands
3 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta
1 Tropical Island
2 Underground Sea
3 Volcanic Island
Legendary Lands
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Greater Gargadon
2 Ingot Chewer
4 Leyline Of The Void
2 Extirpate
2 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Gaea's Blessing
2 Pyroclasm
Some of the card choices here: Power, Will, Tutor, Tinker- Obvious here
Gush + Fastbond- powerful card draw engine, especially when followed by Will
Mana Drain- Accelerates mana while countering spells. The mana can be used for things like Gifts, et al.
Darksteel Colossus- Serves as anti-mirror tech, and an alternate kill method using Tinker
Sideboard choices: Leyline, Hurkyl, Extirpate, Pyroclasm- All self-explanitory
Greater Gargadon- Sac engine versus Oath and the like
Ingot Chewer- A sorcery-speed Oxidize that gets around Chalice of the Void, which has been a problem card.
This thread should contain ideas and discussion regarding this deck.
(Glix- I hope that I'm correct in doing this, given its recent tournament results and popularity explosion)
As for the deck itself, it seems a bit too focused on the actual combo. I would tone this focus down in future variations as there will undoubtedly be a surge of resistance to match the hype this combo will be receiving.
Furthermore, despite the obvious synergy, over reliance on painter will likely result in unfavorable results regarding resistance to the painter itself. Furthermore, my testing seems to indicate that overuse of blasts should be avoided. I would definitely limit blasts to 5 at maximum, but I would advise something more in the 2-4 range.
The deck won SCG, and the ICBM open in a three week span. It has also won some big events in Europe, and made allot of top 8's despite its just being introduced to the format.
The only thing in question is the adequate build. It should be moved.
I agree with black_lotus °_°
Legacy:RUG Temur Delver
Modern: ??? undecided.
Furthermore, the deck is hardly really developed to a point except that "combo = good", since so many different engines have been testing the list.
We can hardly consider a list that did well at one tournament tier 1, particularly considering how new the combo is. We need some results and some more testing, and we need to understand the optimal configuration(s) of lists that employ the engine before we can just say "Here's a competitive thread on any deck spanning every draw engine and archetype that employs this specific kill mechanism". I mean, if two decks in extended use goyf as their win condition, are they the same deck?
I would also like to note that kill mechanisms almost never really define a deck. The draw engine and disruption packages tend to play a much heavier role in defining an archetype.
However, this is not the place for this discussion. Please PM concerns regarding thread placement. Further discussion of the location of a thread on a given thread will be reprimanded. This thread is for the discussion of the archetype proposed, and location of that thread has no bearing on the discussion, does it?
@Sonne: Actually, that is the main point. What would you suggest be altered concerning the board, and what are your specific thoughts on drain. Please embellish your thoughts so that we may further develop the deck.