Gravecrawler is primarily played in Zombie decks right now because that's obviously the only deck it fits in. But considering Geralf's Messenger is good on it's own (in addition to being a zombie), and new Zombies like Lotleth Troll will be rotating in soon that are also good in general... I wonder if it's possible to use a card like Gravecrawler in a beatdown setting with 12 zombies only (including Gravecrawler).
It's a 1 cast 2/1 that can't block, but in beat down... the ability to recast stuff later in the game gives it more value. And at one mana, that's exactly the sort of inevitability that will just get you there.
I've played it in a Smallpox build with as few as 10 total Zombies and while I did come to my senses and decide that 10 is too few, it was a pretty small margin. Gravecrawler + Messenger + Diregraf Ghoul, for example, is probably fine for recasting purposes at least once during most games.
It's almost okay to just have 4 Gravecrawlers. B for a 2/1 is aggressive enough, and any multiples you draw give you the old ones back.
Well, I think it might be a bit extreme to play 4, because if you are playing the 2/1 for B zombies, you are almost better off playing something Strangleroot Giest instead unless you are worried about curving out and have too many two drops.
The whole point of this discussion was kind of in reference to how once standard rotates, you aren't necessarily forced to play Gravecrawler in a zombie deck. You could replace stuff like the 2/2 for 1 and the 2/1 intimidate for 2 with just better stuff higher on the curve, or better cards at the same mana cost but even more resilient than those two.
Obviously Gravecrawler and Geralf's Messenger are awesome. And a certain 2 mana zombie in the new set is pretty solid as well. But after that I see no reason why we can't just end the zombie theme there and fill the rest of the deck with good value cards like Thragtusk, maybe Huntmaster. And in such a deck, Gravecrawler in theory would add extra value after dying/trading with something early in the game and coming back randomly as soon as you played another zombie. It wouldn't be coming back nearly as much, but that's kind of the point of why I made the thread. Is 12 zombies enough? Is 8? From the sound of things, it's sounding like 12 is enough, 8 would really be pushing it.
At worst, you play the set and have a better Elite Vanguard (which isn't unplayable, really).
With that in mind, playing 4 crawler, 4 Ghoul has been fine for me, given my expectations of the cards. I don't expect to spam a Gravecrawler every time I have black mana open. I expect to spam Gravecrawler at random seven turns down the road when my opponent has run out of answers.
At worst, you play the set and have a better Elite Vanguard (which isn't unplayable, really).
With that in mind, playing 4 crawler, 4 Ghoul has been fine for me, given my expectations of the cards. I don't expect to spam a Gravecrawler every time I have black mana open. I expect to spam Gravecrawler at random seven turns down the road when my opponent has run out of answers.
Ok, that makes me feel better about potentially starting off with 8-12 zombies in my Jund deck this fall and getting random value out of being able to play Gravecrawlers late in games. I've been reading threads where people will put 12 zombies and include Gravecrawler, and people will say that's not enough. That's kind of what got me thinking that maybe 12 wasn't enough.
B/R zombie decks get away with just running 12 zombies (Crawlers, Ghouls and Messengers). I find that this t=number is the sweet spot honestly. The recursion with just 12 zombies isn't around at all times, but it is common enough to make it very very relevant and generally reliable.
It's a 1 cast 2/1 that can't block, but in beat down... the ability to recast stuff later in the game gives it more value. And at one mana, that's exactly the sort of inevitability that will just get you there.
Level 1 Judge
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Well, I think it might be a bit extreme to play 4, because if you are playing the 2/1 for B zombies, you are almost better off playing something Strangleroot Giest instead unless you are worried about curving out and have too many two drops.
The whole point of this discussion was kind of in reference to how once standard rotates, you aren't necessarily forced to play Gravecrawler in a zombie deck. You could replace stuff like the 2/2 for 1 and the 2/1 intimidate for 2 with just better stuff higher on the curve, or better cards at the same mana cost but even more resilient than those two.
Obviously Gravecrawler and Geralf's Messenger are awesome. And a certain 2 mana zombie in the new set is pretty solid as well. But after that I see no reason why we can't just end the zombie theme there and fill the rest of the deck with good value cards like Thragtusk, maybe Huntmaster. And in such a deck, Gravecrawler in theory would add extra value after dying/trading with something early in the game and coming back randomly as soon as you played another zombie. It wouldn't be coming back nearly as much, but that's kind of the point of why I made the thread. Is 12 zombies enough? Is 8? From the sound of things, it's sounding like 12 is enough, 8 would really be pushing it.
With that in mind, playing 4 crawler, 4 Ghoul has been fine for me, given my expectations of the cards. I don't expect to spam a Gravecrawler every time I have black mana open. I expect to spam Gravecrawler at random seven turns down the road when my opponent has run out of answers.
Ok, that makes me feel better about potentially starting off with 8-12 zombies in my Jund deck this fall and getting random value out of being able to play Gravecrawlers late in games. I've been reading threads where people will put 12 zombies and include Gravecrawler, and people will say that's not enough. That's kind of what got me thinking that maybe 12 wasn't enough.