So I just went 4-0 with this deck. Didn't even lose one game out of any of those matches. Can't tell if very lucky or if the deck is beastly. What do you think?
I haven't played the format yet, and IMO 16 lands seems 1 too few for your curve, but if I break down your cards it seems you have:
6 1-for-1 removal spells
3 tapping effects (Sentinels seems 1st pickable)
1 UBER-Cataclysm that lets you keep a bomb and give opponent only a weenie (:|)
3 bomb rare creatures
2 efficient 4/4 lifelinks
4 other 2-for-1s
Seems like WB must have been wide open for you. Nice draft.
Surprisingly I only ever had mana problems once and it was by drawing too many lands. I almost put a 17th plains in instead of Veteran's Sidearm but since I wasn't having any problems I just left it at 16.
I think your deck is beastly in the sense that it has an insane top end with multiple bombs, but I think you got lucky in that without those cards (and the mana to cast them, which is questionable on your mana base) your deck is going to lack some punch.
I also don't think Veteran's Sidearm and Grasp are all that good in the first place unless your deck is extremely tilted towards the aggressive side, which yours isn't. Enlightened Ascetic is really more of a sideboard card, especially since you have probably the lion's share of the good auras in the draft pool.
Edit: And two sixers (including double cost on your off-color) plus some fives, and lots of your removal at four on 16 lands seems really loose.
Yeah there was a lot of good stuff I drafted in other colors but as more white removal kept coming my way I went into that. The black kept getting stolen from me so I settled on just a black splash. I didn't really have enough playables which is why I included Veteran's Sidearm at all. The Grasp of the Hieromancers I wanted to ensure I had enchantments to activate my Blood-Cursed Knight dude. They actually were really solid. Being able to tap someone every time you attack not only helps you get in, but it makes them hesitant to attack with anybody because they know they need to leave more people back to block now.
My matchups were:
Mono blue control deck that had a lot of send to sleeps, counters, and that one artifact you can pay one to sac and a creature can't attack this turn. His win condition was supposed to be the fliers he had in the deck.
Blue green control with big monsters. Kind of similar to the above deck but had Outland Collosus and a billion Vastwood Gorgers and a Skaab Goliath. Wasn't a problem for me as I Suppresion Bonds'd everything.
Mono green big monsters. He had Nissa but I never saw her. Suppression Bonds owned this.
And a quick red deck wins type deck that had multiple act of treasons, direct damage stuff, and some hasted stuff. He also splashed green for something, but I never saw what. Games went too quick. This was the closest I came to losing even one game. He got me down to 1 life in game one but couldn't finish before I outraced him. Game two I had both lifelinkers out and 2 Celestial Flares and Reave Soul so I killed all his stuff while gaining life and killing him.
Sounds like you had pretty favorable matchups for your kind of deck. There's not a ton MUC or UG can do to punish you for running the auras other than bouncing your guy, and that's just a 1-for-1 and a small tempo loss. Grasp of the Hieromancer probably looks pretty good in those matchups, but against other decks something as simple as a Fiery Impulse in response to the Grasp is good for a 2-for-1 against almost half your team.
The power level in the deck is insanely high, so you were very lucky to see that many strong cards, which then contribute to a strong deck. That said, I see some glaring errors in the way the deck is constructed around those bombs. Tragic Arrogance and Sentinel of the Eternal Watch are two of the bombiest limited cards in the set, and Kothophed/Hixus/Marauder aren't far behind. You are essentially playing with 5 windmill slam 1st picks in your two colors (most decks being lucky to have 1-2), and on top of that you have some nice removal and other strong creatures. Good job in recognizing and taking those powerful things, but now you need to work on how to maximize your win % beyond taking the obvious stuff. Don't fall into the trap of believing that going 4-0 means you didn't make mistakes, easy to do but harmful in the long run.
So what's the problem? Well the devil is in the details:
- 16 lands is definitely incorrect here, you should be running at least 17 given your high end plays and honestly if you were short on playables (i.e. had to play the Sidearm because you were so short) then just playing 18 would be better than playing a bad card like that. Especially in a deck like this where you have such a crazy strong high end, with multiple ways to get back into a game or generate significant card advantage. The last thing you want is to be stuck on 3-4 land with your powerhouses stuck in your hand. With that kind of power at the top end you can afford to draw an extra land later in the game, as you have the raw power to offset the "dead" draw.
- Sidearm is just bad and shouldn't be in the deck. It simply doesn't do enough to be worth a card and the cost/equip. Like I said, another land is far better in its place.
- Enlightened Ascetic is a sideboard card 100% of the time, I would much rather have a land in its place, even if that means going up to 18 lands in this case (and in this case that rings even truer given the fact that you have taken all/most of the Suppression Bonds at the table, meaning this has that many fewer good targets you want it for)
- I like Grasp in an aggressive deck, but I'm not a huge fan of it in a more mid-range deck like this. And that really goes double in this case, as you have a high-end so powerful that you really don't need the help in closing games. That said, I would be fine playing one of these given the presence of the Hartebeast and the Knight. But I would definitely not be running two.
- I'd much rather have Auramancer in the sideboard here. Why? Because Grasp is the only enchantment you have that is likely to be hitting the graveyard frequently in game 1's (and you should only be playing one of those to begin with). Getting back a Bonds sounds great, but game one how often will that happen? OTOH I would happily bring this guy in for games 2/3, assuming my opponent has seen my Suppression Bonds and/or Hartebeast, and is likely to be bringing in answers. All of that said, if you were indeed really short on playables then playing the Auramancer in the main is fine, having a 2/2 body is much better than having the Sidearm/Ascetic/2nd Grasp. (Now if one of your Suppression Bonds was a Weight of the Underworld then I'd be happy to see this guy main, especially with Hartebeast there to find it. Because Weight is likely to put itself into the graveyard when you play it, or shortly thereafter. Not saying you should have picked a Weight over a Bonds, still much rather have the Bonds, just saying that something like that is what you should be looking for when deciding on an iffy maindeck card like the Auramancer)
- Only 1 2-drop creature could get you into trouble against faster decks (although the cheap removal and catchup bombs help to offset that). That combined with the lack of playables suggests you probably need to prioritize curve-filling creatures a bit higher when you are drafting. Pay attention to your curve and playable counts, and by late pack 2, and especially pack 3, start taking those simple 2 and 3 drops creatures a little higher if it looks like you are going to come up short, as you did here. You don't need anything fancy, Runed Servitor, Cleric of the Forward Order, Deadbridge Shaman, Fetid Imp, Eyeblight Assassin, etc...any decent creature that can trade with something at about the same casting cost would be fine. The importance of creatures like this, and having a solid curve, is that it prevents you from getting run over early AND if allows you to apply pressure in games where your opponent stumbles early. And ideally that is exactly what you want to be doing, even in a bomb-filled deck like this. If you apply some pressure then the opponent might have to use their removal on one of your early creatures...and find themselves helpless against the Sentinel or Kothophed.
All of that said, congrats on the win and the sweet deck. While that looks like a lot of criticism, to a degree I am really magnifying what would ultimately amount to some relatively minor changes (take out Sidearm, Ascetic, 1 Grasp, maybe Auramancer, add in 2 lands and hopefully a couple of low drop creatures). But hopefully the thought process behind those changes will help inform some future drafts.
Ok, Cruel Revival and Stalwart Aven are high quality cards, that absolutely should be in your MD. Then Weight of the Underworld has great synergy with your auras subtheme so I would push it in as well. From there your deck is definitely a controlling type of deck with an enormous amount of late game power, but it's lacking in 2-drops to stop your opponent from just curving out against you. I would put in some substandard early drops that will shield your life total until your higher quality cards can win for you.
This list still has an inadequate number of 1-2 drops. I'd be very prepared to blow a 2 mana removal spell on a 'bad' target in this deck simply to prevent you from falling too far behind on the board, so that you can survive to play all of your 5+ mana bombs. I'd expect to win basically every game that I make it to 5 mana because the high end is so good.
Having seen your extras these are the exact changes I would make:
Out: Sidearm, Grasp, Grasp, Ascetic
In: Aven, Weight, Cruel Revival, Swamp
On the surface it might appear as though we are slowing the deck down, but when you consider how things are likely to actually play out you'll see that we are doing the opposite. The 4 cards we are cutting are likely to do NOTHING until at least turn 4, and the things they do are inconsistent and/or weak. Ascetic often won't have a target, Sidearm is weak. Grasps are great in the right situation/deck, but terrible when you are behind or when their target gets killed/bounced. In this deck in particular I don't love them, as your lack of 2-drops means that this is the likely play pattern for them:
Turn 1 - Nothing
Turn 2 - Maybe nothing, maybe a removal spell if you are on the draw
Turn 3 - Creature, hopefully a Knight.
Turn 4 - Grasp the creature and maybe swing, probably aren't doing anything else due to lack of 2-drops, but maybe you have a removal spell if you didn't play one on turn 2. If your three drop wasn't the Knight then there is a decent chance you don't even want to swing in this spot, as you may very well want to be blocking.
So what's the problem with that scenario? In short: opponents tend to play removal and/or bounce. And guess what is going to happen to that first creature that becomes a real threat...yup, it is likely to eat said removal/bounce spell. Not only does this likely end up costing you a card, but it could also end up being a huge tempo problem if you didn't happen to draw those 2-mana removal spells. An opponent who just played a simple curve of decent 2/3/4 drops is running over you at this point. In some decks you need to take on risk, like that the Grasp presents, in order to win. But in a deck loaded with this much raw power and removal there is absolutely no need to take that kind of risk. Just play good fair cards starting on turn 2/3 and you will gradually overwhelm pretty much any deck I've seen through sheer superiority of card quality. Plus some decks are fine eating the card disadvantage for the kind of burst damage the Grasp allows, but again this isn't one of those decks. This deck is happy to play a long game and does not want to risk giving up cards in order to shorten the game.
OTOH the cards we have added are all good on both offense and defense, and they impact the board immediately by adding/removing bodies. So while they cost more, in terms of actually interacting with the opponent in those critical turns 3-5 they are far better.
One way to think about it is to look at the big picture and consider how your deck is likely to win/lose games. In this case I don't see Grasp winning many games you would have lost. OTOH I can easily see it losing games you might have won otherwise.
As I mentioned in my run down Grasp of the Hieromancer was very powerful. It won me I would argue around half of the games I won. Tapping a guy down to get in unblocked hurts bad, and makes them reticent to attack at all.
I understand that confirmation bias and results oriented thinking are both powerful reasons to want to think that you didn't make any mistakes at all in deckbuilding. That will hinder you from growing and improving as a player.
As I mentioned in my run down Grasp of the Hieromancer was very powerful. It won me I would argue around half of the games I won. Tapping a guy down to get in unblocked hurts bad, and makes them reticent to attack at all.
The problem is that it looks like a "win more" card in a deck like yours. Meaning that it looks great when you are already in good position, but is a liability when you are behind. The reality is that it was one of the worst cards in your deck, so do you really think it "won" you those games or that maybe the overwhelming power level of your other cards put you into positions where an otherwise iffy card could shine?
If you are in a position to consider attacking, or even a neutral board position, with a deck like this then you are in good shape to win the game. It might take a little bit longer than it would with Grasp, but between your bombs, removal and quality creatures you are very likely to get there eventually. OTOH if you are behind in a game then the Grasp does virtually nothing.
Another way to look at it would be this: Would you rather tap a blocker with Grasp...or just kill it with Cruel/Weight? When you think about it like that doesn't the answer seem pretty obvious?
Yes, the Grasp is cheaper, but you aren't looking to attack until at least turn 4 anyway so that isn't a big factor. In a very aggressive deck then I could see wanting the Grasp a lot more, but this just isn't that deck. Throw in 3 Freeblades and maybe it is a different story. And of course the upside of the removal spells is that they are infinitely better when you are worried about dealing with an opposing ATTACKER (as opposed to a blocker), which again will often be the case when you lack 2-drops.
I understand that confirmation bias and results oriented thinking are both powerful reasons to want to think that you didn't make any mistakes at all in deckbuilding. That will hinder you from growing and improving as a player.
How would a 5 cmc removal spell with no secondary effect be the most powerful card in any deck?
As I mentioned in my run down Grasp of the Hieromancer was very powerful. It won me I would argue around half of the games I won. Tapping a guy down to get in unblocked hurts bad, and makes them reticent to attack at all.
The problem is that it looks like a "win more" card in a deck like yours. Meaning that it looks great when you are already in good position, but is a liability when you are behind. The reality is that it was one of the worst cards in your deck, so do you really think it "won" you those games or that maybe the overwhelming power level of your other cards put you into positions where an otherwise iffy card could shine?
If you are in a position to consider attacking, or even a neutral board position, with a deck like this then you are in good shape to win the game. It might take a little bit longer than it would with Grasp, but between your bombs, removal and quality creatures you are very likely to get there eventually. OTOH if you are behind in a game then the Grasp does virtually nothing.
Another way to look at it would be this: Would you rather tap a blocker with Grasp...or just kill it with Cruel/Weight? When you think about it like that doesn't the answer seem pretty obvious?
Yes, the Grasp is cheaper, but you aren't looking to attack until at least turn 4 anyway so that isn't a big factor. In a very aggressive deck then I could see wanting the Grasp a lot more, but this just isn't that deck. Throw in 3 Freeblades and maybe it is a different story. And of course the upside of the removal spells is that they are infinitely better when you are worried about dealing with an opposing ATTACKER (as opposed to a blocker), which again will often be the case when you lack 2-drops.
Grasp turns on blood-cursed knight. Weight of the Underworld, if used to kill something, doesn't.
As I mentioned in my run down Grasp of the Hieromancer was very powerful. It won me I would argue around half of the games I won. Tapping a guy down to get in unblocked hurts bad, and makes them reticent to attack at all.
The problem is that it looks like a "win more" card in a deck like yours. Meaning that it looks great when you are already in good position, but is a liability when you are behind. The reality is that it was one of the worst cards in your deck, so do you really think it "won" you those games or that maybe the overwhelming power level of your other cards put you into positions where an otherwise iffy card could shine?
If you are in a position to consider attacking, or even a neutral board position, with a deck like this then you are in good shape to win the game. It might take a little bit longer than it would with Grasp, but between your bombs, removal and quality creatures you are very likely to get there eventually. OTOH if you are behind in a game then the Grasp does virtually nothing.
Another way to look at it would be this: Would you rather tap a blocker with Grasp...or just kill it with Cruel/Weight? When you think about it like that doesn't the answer seem pretty obvious?
Yes, the Grasp is cheaper, but you aren't looking to attack until at least turn 4 anyway so that isn't a big factor. In a very aggressive deck then I could see wanting the Grasp a lot more, but this just isn't that deck. Throw in 3 Freeblades and maybe it is a different story. And of course the upside of the removal spells is that they are infinitely better when you are worried about dealing with an opposing ATTACKER (as opposed to a blocker), which again will often be the case when you lack 2-drops.
Grasp turns on blood-cursed knight. Weight of the Underworld, if used to kill something, doesn't.
And?
Seriously, look at your point compared to the multiple points I've made in the other direction. Turning on the Knight is nice, but not that big of a reward even when it comes up. Heck, how many times will you see the Knight with the Grasp? How many times will you see them together and NOT one of your 3 Suppression Bonds? How many times will you see a Grasp w/o a Knight and wish it was a removal spell?
Even when you have Knight you would often be better off just killing their guy. That way you are in MUCH better shape if/when they kill or bounce your Knight. Now consider the more common scenarios where you aren't playing this on your single copy of a Knight. Pretty clear that the removal spell is better right? Now consider playing against someone with a lot of removal and not having a creature in play, or just being on the defensive and not wanting to attack. Again, very big edge to the removal spell. Put it all together and you get a very narrow window where the Grasp is better, and this is the kind of deck that just doesn't need to look for that window.
Don't feel bad about being wrong here, Grasp is a tough card to evaluate and you are falling into a VERY common trap that we all fall for sometimes: the "best case" trap. That happens when we imagine, and sometimes even experience, a card in its best-case scenario and then overrate it as a result (in this case that would be curving Knight into Grasp and the opponent not having removal/bounce). The problem is that we get blinded by that best-case and don't really consider what it will do in more typical in-game situations.
OP doesn't think he is wrong about anything. His deck went 4-0, so by definition no mistakes were made in draft or construction and there's no possible way to improve it. How can you make a deck go better than undefeated?
OP doesn't think he is wrong about anything. His deck went 4-0, so by definition no mistakes were made in draft or construction and there's no possible way to improve it. How can you make a deck go better than undefeated?
/sarcasm.
Maybe but I haven't really gotten that impression yet. Could be that this is just a brag post to show off a powerful deck, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he wants constructive feedback. Yes, his replies have been kind of simplistic, but they are fair points and illustrate his thought process. Cruel is expensive and he already has a lot of good expensive removal, easy to understand why he might be concerned about that. Grasp is nice in conjunction with the Knight, easy to be led astray there. What I'm taking away from his posts and his deck building choices is that he is a relatively new player to draft, so I'm trying to be patient and explain some thought process that might not come naturally, or at all, to most new drafters. Hopefully he is receptive to the feedback and it helps, and if not maybe our discussion helps someone else who is reading the thread.
I was being sincere in talking about Grasp and how it is a very easy card to make a mistake with in terms of evaluating it for a given deck. It is the kind of card where the value swings wildly from deck to deck. In some it would be virtually unplayable, in others I would be happy to play 2 of them. I think this deck as a whole definitely leans towards the former...but it contains a trap in the form of the Knight, making the Grasp even trickier to evaluate by creating this tantalizing upside.
What you guys are failing to realize is that while taking removal things is generally really good in limited, there comes a point where you need to actually win the game. I have 8 removal spells already plus 2 recursion effects which get them back, plus 3 tapping effects. Yet you're saying I should put 2 more removal spells in as if this isn't enough? Why would I need 10 removal abilities in a 40 card deck? I don't. Hell most people don't even run that many in a 60 card deck.
Also when did I ever say I was new to draft? I played on the Pro Tour in '09-'11 I'm not "new to draft."
I'm receptive to feedback but this feedback is nonsense. You're saying Grasp is bad when it literally won me half my games. That doesn't make sense, now does it? Without this card in the deck, I DEFINITELY would not have gone undefeated in terms of games and could have even dropped one or two of my matches. See why it's incredibly stupid to say it's bad? Maybe you just use it wrong yourself...?
You were running Enlightened Ascetic maindeck over Stalwart Aven in a deck with an already low creature count. When you talk about needing to eventually win the game Aven is much better at that than a card that will most often just be a 2 mana 1/1.
I'm wondering what the point of this thread is. You asked whether your deck was beastly, specifically asked for opinions, and then became defensive about every single one. What were you hoping people would say?
Stalwart Aven is a bad card. Enlightened Ascetic is not. Especially in an aura heavy set like this one.
What's happening? Is this real life? You seem incredibly resistant to any suggestions anyone here wants to make, so I would recommend taking a look at some pro articles to get a better idea of power levels in limited. Luis Scott-Vargas's limited reviews on channelfireball are pretty consistently on point, and he gave Stalwart Aven at 3 out of 5 and Enlightened Ascetic a 0.5. You drafted a deck with a lot of incredible rares and unsurprisingly won. I think you are letting this blind you to some mistakes you made.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I haven't played the format yet, and IMO 16 lands seems 1 too few for your curve, but if I break down your cards it seems you have:
6 1-for-1 removal spells
3 tapping effects (Sentinels seems 1st pickable)
1 UBER-Cataclysm that lets you keep a bomb and give opponent only a weenie (:|)
3 bomb rare creatures
2 efficient 4/4 lifelinks
4 other 2-for-1s
Seems like WB must have been wide open for you. Nice draft.
I think your deck is beastly in the sense that it has an insane top end with multiple bombs, but I think you got lucky in that without those cards (and the mana to cast them, which is questionable on your mana base) your deck is going to lack some punch.
For example, you have cards that need creatures in play like Grasp of the Hieromancer, Veteran's Sidearm and Enshrouding Mist, but only 12 creatures. I could see your deck just folding to a couple well-timed removal spells.
I also don't think Veteran's Sidearm and Grasp are all that good in the first place unless your deck is extremely tilted towards the aggressive side, which yours isn't. Enlightened Ascetic is really more of a sideboard card, especially since you have probably the lion's share of the good auras in the draft pool.
Edit: And two sixers (including double cost on your off-color) plus some fives, and lots of your removal at four on 16 lands seems really loose.
My matchups were:
Mono blue control deck that had a lot of send to sleeps, counters, and that one artifact you can pay one to sac and a creature can't attack this turn. His win condition was supposed to be the fliers he had in the deck.
Blue green control with big monsters. Kind of similar to the above deck but had Outland Collosus and a billion Vastwood Gorgers and a Skaab Goliath. Wasn't a problem for me as I Suppresion Bonds'd everything.
Mono green big monsters. He had Nissa but I never saw her. Suppression Bonds owned this.
And a quick red deck wins type deck that had multiple act of treasons, direct damage stuff, and some hasted stuff. He also splashed green for something, but I never saw what. Games went too quick. This was the closest I came to losing even one game. He got me down to 1 life in game one but couldn't finish before I outraced him. Game two I had both lifelinkers out and 2 Celestial Flares and Reave Soul so I killed all his stuff while gaining life and killing him.
So what's the problem? Well the devil is in the details:
- 16 lands is definitely incorrect here, you should be running at least 17 given your high end plays and honestly if you were short on playables (i.e. had to play the Sidearm because you were so short) then just playing 18 would be better than playing a bad card like that. Especially in a deck like this where you have such a crazy strong high end, with multiple ways to get back into a game or generate significant card advantage. The last thing you want is to be stuck on 3-4 land with your powerhouses stuck in your hand. With that kind of power at the top end you can afford to draw an extra land later in the game, as you have the raw power to offset the "dead" draw.
- Sidearm is just bad and shouldn't be in the deck. It simply doesn't do enough to be worth a card and the cost/equip. Like I said, another land is far better in its place.
- Enlightened Ascetic is a sideboard card 100% of the time, I would much rather have a land in its place, even if that means going up to 18 lands in this case (and in this case that rings even truer given the fact that you have taken all/most of the Suppression Bonds at the table, meaning this has that many fewer good targets you want it for)
- I like Grasp in an aggressive deck, but I'm not a huge fan of it in a more mid-range deck like this. And that really goes double in this case, as you have a high-end so powerful that you really don't need the help in closing games. That said, I would be fine playing one of these given the presence of the Hartebeast and the Knight. But I would definitely not be running two.
- I'd much rather have Auramancer in the sideboard here. Why? Because Grasp is the only enchantment you have that is likely to be hitting the graveyard frequently in game 1's (and you should only be playing one of those to begin with). Getting back a Bonds sounds great, but game one how often will that happen? OTOH I would happily bring this guy in for games 2/3, assuming my opponent has seen my Suppression Bonds and/or Hartebeast, and is likely to be bringing in answers. All of that said, if you were indeed really short on playables then playing the Auramancer in the main is fine, having a 2/2 body is much better than having the Sidearm/Ascetic/2nd Grasp. (Now if one of your Suppression Bonds was a Weight of the Underworld then I'd be happy to see this guy main, especially with Hartebeast there to find it. Because Weight is likely to put itself into the graveyard when you play it, or shortly thereafter. Not saying you should have picked a Weight over a Bonds, still much rather have the Bonds, just saying that something like that is what you should be looking for when deciding on an iffy maindeck card like the Auramancer)
- Only 1 2-drop creature could get you into trouble against faster decks (although the cheap removal and catchup bombs help to offset that). That combined with the lack of playables suggests you probably need to prioritize curve-filling creatures a bit higher when you are drafting. Pay attention to your curve and playable counts, and by late pack 2, and especially pack 3, start taking those simple 2 and 3 drops creatures a little higher if it looks like you are going to come up short, as you did here. You don't need anything fancy, Runed Servitor, Cleric of the Forward Order, Deadbridge Shaman, Fetid Imp, Eyeblight Assassin, etc...any decent creature that can trade with something at about the same casting cost would be fine. The importance of creatures like this, and having a solid curve, is that it prevents you from getting run over early AND if allows you to apply pressure in games where your opponent stumbles early. And ideally that is exactly what you want to be doing, even in a bomb-filled deck like this. If you apply some pressure then the opponent might have to use their removal on one of your early creatures...and find themselves helpless against the Sentinel or Kothophed.
All of that said, congrats on the win and the sweet deck. While that looks like a lot of criticism, to a degree I am really magnifying what would ultimately amount to some relatively minor changes (take out Sidearm, Ascetic, 1 Grasp, maybe Auramancer, add in 2 lands and hopefully a couple of low drop creatures). But hopefully the thought process behind those changes will help inform some future drafts.
1x Cruel Revival
1x Stalwart Aven
1x Weight of the Underworld
1x Guardians of Meletis
1x Yoked Ox
1x Swamp
1x Veteran's Sidearm
1x Enlightened Ascetic
2x Grasp of the Hieromancer
Making this deck (grouped by creatures and spells, not colours)
1x Topan Freeblade
1x Auramancer
1x Blood-Cursed Knight
1x Knight of the Pilgrim's Road
1x Guardians of Meletis
1x Graveblade Marauder
1x Ampryn Tactician
1x War Oracle
1x Totem-Guide Hartebeest
1x Hixus, Prison Warden
1x Sentinel of the Eternal Watch
1x Kothophed, Soul Hoarder
2x Celestial Flare
1x Reave Soul
1x Read the Bones
1x Weight of the Underworld
3x Suppression Bonds
1x Tragic Arrogance
10x Plains
6x Swamp
Curve
1 cs
2 csss
3 cccccs
4 ccssss
5 ccs
6 cc
This list still has an inadequate number of 1-2 drops. I'd be very prepared to blow a 2 mana removal spell on a 'bad' target in this deck simply to prevent you from falling too far behind on the board, so that you can survive to play all of your 5+ mana bombs. I'd expect to win basically every game that I make it to 5 mana because the high end is so good.
Out: Sidearm, Grasp, Grasp, Ascetic
In: Aven, Weight, Cruel Revival, Swamp
On the surface it might appear as though we are slowing the deck down, but when you consider how things are likely to actually play out you'll see that we are doing the opposite. The 4 cards we are cutting are likely to do NOTHING until at least turn 4, and the things they do are inconsistent and/or weak. Ascetic often won't have a target, Sidearm is weak. Grasps are great in the right situation/deck, but terrible when you are behind or when their target gets killed/bounced. In this deck in particular I don't love them, as your lack of 2-drops means that this is the likely play pattern for them:
Turn 1 - Nothing
Turn 2 - Maybe nothing, maybe a removal spell if you are on the draw
Turn 3 - Creature, hopefully a Knight.
Turn 4 - Grasp the creature and maybe swing, probably aren't doing anything else due to lack of 2-drops, but maybe you have a removal spell if you didn't play one on turn 2. If your three drop wasn't the Knight then there is a decent chance you don't even want to swing in this spot, as you may very well want to be blocking.
So what's the problem with that scenario? In short: opponents tend to play removal and/or bounce. And guess what is going to happen to that first creature that becomes a real threat...yup, it is likely to eat said removal/bounce spell. Not only does this likely end up costing you a card, but it could also end up being a huge tempo problem if you didn't happen to draw those 2-mana removal spells. An opponent who just played a simple curve of decent 2/3/4 drops is running over you at this point. In some decks you need to take on risk, like that the Grasp presents, in order to win. But in a deck loaded with this much raw power and removal there is absolutely no need to take that kind of risk. Just play good fair cards starting on turn 2/3 and you will gradually overwhelm pretty much any deck I've seen through sheer superiority of card quality. Plus some decks are fine eating the card disadvantage for the kind of burst damage the Grasp allows, but again this isn't one of those decks. This deck is happy to play a long game and does not want to risk giving up cards in order to shorten the game.
OTOH the cards we have added are all good on both offense and defense, and they impact the board immediately by adding/removing bodies. So while they cost more, in terms of actually interacting with the opponent in those critical turns 3-5 they are far better.
One way to think about it is to look at the big picture and consider how your deck is likely to win/lose games. In this case I don't see Grasp winning many games you would have lost. OTOH I can easily see it losing games you might have won otherwise.
Good luck with that. I think that Cruel Revival would have been the best spell in your deck after Tragic Arrogance.
I understand that confirmation bias and results oriented thinking are both powerful reasons to want to think that you didn't make any mistakes at all in deckbuilding. That will hinder you from growing and improving as a player.
The problem is that it looks like a "win more" card in a deck like yours. Meaning that it looks great when you are already in good position, but is a liability when you are behind. The reality is that it was one of the worst cards in your deck, so do you really think it "won" you those games or that maybe the overwhelming power level of your other cards put you into positions where an otherwise iffy card could shine?
If you are in a position to consider attacking, or even a neutral board position, with a deck like this then you are in good shape to win the game. It might take a little bit longer than it would with Grasp, but between your bombs, removal and quality creatures you are very likely to get there eventually. OTOH if you are behind in a game then the Grasp does virtually nothing.
Another way to look at it would be this: Would you rather tap a blocker with Grasp...or just kill it with Cruel/Weight? When you think about it like that doesn't the answer seem pretty obvious?
Yes, the Grasp is cheaper, but you aren't looking to attack until at least turn 4 anyway so that isn't a big factor. In a very aggressive deck then I could see wanting the Grasp a lot more, but this just isn't that deck. Throw in 3 Freeblades and maybe it is a different story. And of course the upside of the removal spells is that they are infinitely better when you are worried about dealing with an opposing ATTACKER (as opposed to a blocker), which again will often be the case when you lack 2-drops.
How would a 5 cmc removal spell with no secondary effect be the most powerful card in any deck?
Grasp turns on blood-cursed knight. Weight of the Underworld, if used to kill something, doesn't.
And?
Seriously, look at your point compared to the multiple points I've made in the other direction. Turning on the Knight is nice, but not that big of a reward even when it comes up. Heck, how many times will you see the Knight with the Grasp? How many times will you see them together and NOT one of your 3 Suppression Bonds? How many times will you see a Grasp w/o a Knight and wish it was a removal spell?
Even when you have Knight you would often be better off just killing their guy. That way you are in MUCH better shape if/when they kill or bounce your Knight. Now consider the more common scenarios where you aren't playing this on your single copy of a Knight. Pretty clear that the removal spell is better right? Now consider playing against someone with a lot of removal and not having a creature in play, or just being on the defensive and not wanting to attack. Again, very big edge to the removal spell. Put it all together and you get a very narrow window where the Grasp is better, and this is the kind of deck that just doesn't need to look for that window.
Don't feel bad about being wrong here, Grasp is a tough card to evaluate and you are falling into a VERY common trap that we all fall for sometimes: the "best case" trap. That happens when we imagine, and sometimes even experience, a card in its best-case scenario and then overrate it as a result (in this case that would be curving Knight into Grasp and the opponent not having removal/bounce). The problem is that we get blinded by that best-case and don't really consider what it will do in more typical in-game situations.
OP doesn't think he is wrong about anything. His deck went 4-0, so by definition no mistakes were made in draft or construction and there's no possible way to improve it. How can you make a deck go better than undefeated?
/sarcasm.
Maybe but I haven't really gotten that impression yet. Could be that this is just a brag post to show off a powerful deck, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he wants constructive feedback. Yes, his replies have been kind of simplistic, but they are fair points and illustrate his thought process. Cruel is expensive and he already has a lot of good expensive removal, easy to understand why he might be concerned about that. Grasp is nice in conjunction with the Knight, easy to be led astray there. What I'm taking away from his posts and his deck building choices is that he is a relatively new player to draft, so I'm trying to be patient and explain some thought process that might not come naturally, or at all, to most new drafters. Hopefully he is receptive to the feedback and it helps, and if not maybe our discussion helps someone else who is reading the thread.
I was being sincere in talking about Grasp and how it is a very easy card to make a mistake with in terms of evaluating it for a given deck. It is the kind of card where the value swings wildly from deck to deck. In some it would be virtually unplayable, in others I would be happy to play 2 of them. I think this deck as a whole definitely leans towards the former...but it contains a trap in the form of the Knight, making the Grasp even trickier to evaluate by creating this tantalizing upside.
Also when did I ever say I was new to draft? I played on the Pro Tour in '09-'11 I'm not "new to draft."
I'm receptive to feedback but this feedback is nonsense. You're saying Grasp is bad when it literally won me half my games. That doesn't make sense, now does it? Without this card in the deck, I DEFINITELY would not have gone undefeated in terms of games and could have even dropped one or two of my matches. See why it's incredibly stupid to say it's bad? Maybe you just use it wrong yourself...?
I'm wondering what the point of this thread is. You asked whether your deck was beastly, specifically asked for opinions, and then became defensive about every single one. What were you hoping people would say?
What's happening? Is this real life? You seem incredibly resistant to any suggestions anyone here wants to make, so I would recommend taking a look at some pro articles to get a better idea of power levels in limited. Luis Scott-Vargas's limited reviews on channelfireball are pretty consistently on point, and he gave Stalwart Aven at 3 out of 5 and Enlightened Ascetic a 0.5. You drafted a deck with a lot of incredible rares and unsurprisingly won. I think you are letting this blind you to some mistakes you made.