Quite simply, I've noticed a lot of GR advocates everywhere, not just here, this archetype is literally exploding in popularity. One of the big questions that seems to be popping up recently now, is splashing another color, and is picking up some steam as evidenced by the Jund thread here.
I would be very interested in exploring/creating specifically a RUG Devotion Primer, as well as another Primer that's entirely different - "G/R Devotion vs G/R Monsters". The aim of that "Vs Primer" would be entirely different - it would be a functional, back to basics, very hard and deep look at the similarities between the two archetypes, ultimately showing the pros/cons/edges both have to offer, as the meta continues to shift. This is also largely due to the fact that this archetype is again, exploding in popularity, and I personally feel a megathread simply analyzing the intricate differences between the two decks could be beneficial for new folks.
I ask you folks, which of the two Primers do YOU feel would be more beneficial, or useful to this community?
EDIT: Comments are absolutely welcome too, and please more votes! I see the high view count as about 20 times higher than the number of votes already! :>
Yo dawg Frites Player, we herd you liked getting 1 for 3'd by Angel of Serenity, so we put some Angels in your Angel (Avacyn) so you can get chained while you get exiled. ANGELCEPTION.
I voted for the Monsters v Devotion primer. This is certainly for personal reasons as I think it would be really interesting to discuss and breakdown which deck is better suited for various environments since these two decks often get clumped together in people's minds.
That being said, I'm not sure that such a primer would be anything other than interesting and educational as it wouldn't really be working towards any particular deck list as the others sort of do.
I think the idea of a monsters v devotion primer is good. I realize I'm new to the board, but I've been competitive in MTG a time or two. When Theros block came out I was one of the advocates of mono-green devo, with BNG I splashed red and feel like the deck is at a different level. I do see a lot of overlap in traditional devo lists that Monsters has and I wonder if devo can't be more focused to take advantage of the mass amount of mana it can achieve. A bit like GR Tron trying for a t3 Karn, Gr devo should be trying for an early game changing threat that other decks can't compete with. When those threats get answered have enough card draw to keep putting more threats on the board until critical mass has been exceeded.
Monsters I've not piloted it enough, for the sake of discussion I'd like to see a primer that has the experts discuss the advantages of it.
I'm glad to see these replies! Thanks folks. Quite honestly, I think I'll end up doing both primers, hell, it can only help, right? Been sticking with this archetype for the past 2 years really, and don't see myself going out of GR, ever.
Also @ Magicmerl - good questions, (I also have asked them myself a lot) I thought a lot on these last night and wanted to try and give you/anyone else asking this the best I can.
Would a vs discussion really be a primer?
This will attempt to be the Wikipedia of Gruul decks, purely a REFERENCE Primer, not a discussion. I also do not mean to sound accusatory in the least towards our GR Aggro/Midrange thread, I feel it's just become a bit bloated. Those of us veterans/regulars who have kept up with it for awhile now know the ins and outs, and a few people can add a ton of pages discussing amongst themselves. I think this can be perhaps dissuading for somebody new to the archetype, say that they're legitimately serious and willing to learn this archetype, but do they really need to go through the headache of reading all the CHATTER to learn the finer/subtle/important details? I say no.
-By contrast, the GR Monsters or GR Devotion Primers have become more of a DISCUSSION board - people frequently talk matchups, and sideboarding consists of a vast majority of the posts, aka actual game-play. If you want to get "up to speed" on the current Primer Discussions, and the "latest how to and know how" you have to slog through 30+ pages of Q&A - I'm not suggesting that thread is bad or whatever, it's simply becoming a very hot spot to CHAT. It has become cluttered over time (GR Aggro/midrange more than Devotion). I think there can be a place where you theoretically read 2-3 pages of a very comprehensive series of posts, that have synthesized month's worth of information in a far shorter span of time, and save yourself the headache of seeing the same questions asked over and over (if you're somebody trying to "get up to speed").
-This "Primer" would look at what cards have been used previously (before Born of the Gods), and why, and really go into the intricacies of how these two decks have arrived up until now.
-This will be a very nuts and bolts thing, and nitpicky. It will also be updated with respect to the meta, and which cards *by themselves* become better/worse positioned. Ratings will change.
-A card "rating" system - I did this before and received a lot of positive feedback. Without writing a wall about it, I used a very simple "star rating" (zero stars being lowest, three stars being highest) for the three most relevant matchup categories a card can fall into - aggro, midrange, and control. For instance, Sylvan Caryatid gets a *** vs aggro, a * vs midrange, and a * vs control. These ratings will be in flux, and here's the real nitpicker - which build they are in, GR Devotion, or GR Monsters, can drastically effect a cards rating. My rating system was fair before, but it was trying to evaluate the cards in respect to BOTH decks, which is incorrect. The ratings need to be separate, for each cards, in the different builds, because even though the different builds share a lot of the same parts, the ways they interlock with each other are VERY different.
-What the hell does all this mean? It's for the sake of synthesizing all the information out there in a (hopefully) quicker, simpler, and easy to see for yourself way.
It's basically just comparing Nykthos, BTE, Satyr, Nylea, Colossus with Mutavault, Mortars, Rampager, Stormbreath.
The devotion build can be more ridiculous, but is overall less consistent and is less able to interact with the opponent.
Now to answer your real question. I actually do agree with your sentiment here, and know from a lot of your posts over the past couple of months you're a knowledgeable player/etc. If I were to give a new player asking for the short answer, you just gave the really synthesized cliff notes version, and it's entirely valid - for the time being.
Here's where things change, and/or get more interesting, let me try to give one simple example, to try and prove the point that it's worth it to go deeper. Let's look at Burning-Tree Emissary. She's been debated endlessly, criticized or loved by many. She's obviously "better" in a Devotion build, and the current Monsters builds don't care about her at all (for the most part).
New information or new subtle ways of deck construction can change what is theoretically correct, or was incorrect before. The next point in tandem with this bear with me, this has nothing to do with BTE herself - I think it's completely safe to say that Gruul is on the road to evolving to splash a third color. It's now SAFE to splash that third color, and it's also being done because it NEEDS to be done - to fight the exploding popularity of the mirror in this archetype. We have access to new Scry-lands, and 8 scryland configurations in a midrangier shell are proving to have added or new consistency. These things go a very long way to helping with the time honored complaint of "this card is such a bad topdeck". Slightly new additions such as Courser of Kruphix do effect the way the deck interacts with itself. Since this entire format is defined by self-interaction, the penultimate example of it being Devotion, I think it pays to put every single card under the microscope now more than ever. It all adds up.
Back to BTE - Is she better than she was before? Perhaps, yes. Are you running 2 of the new Xenagods in your deck? BTE gains power with the addition of new cards, she was a great devotion enabler before, but she's even stronger now. What other angles do people not consider about this card? BTE in a deck allows it to play better from behind, or on the draw when you need to catch up on tempo and hit the ground running. She's not just a dump your hand vomit Grizzly Bears anymore, and can have a TON of small interactions within your deck.
-Having 4x BTE in your deck makes Xenagos, the Reveler go from 2-of good, to 3-of good, (IMO)"in a sense" - you can play Reveler as a Bloodbraid Elf of sorts on some turns, because you were able to deploy some early creatures for free/had more early creatures in the deck. Where in the GR Monsters builds, they have far less early creatures, and get stuck with Reveler in hand/not want to play him the same way a Devotion build would.
But in previous decks where she's been (rightly so) evaluated, such as Naya Blitz, she served a *completely* different role, I won't even go there.
None of this is probably new information to you. I'm wanting to help folks not only get up to speed quicker, but see all the subtle angles to our various card choices, because they do really matter in this devotion/self-deck interaction meta.
Yo dawg Frites Player, we herd you liked getting 1 for 3'd by Angel of Serenity, so we put some Angels in your Angel (Avacyn) so you can get chained while you get exiled. ANGELCEPTION.
Here's where things change, and/or get more interesting, let me try to give one simple example, to try and prove the point that it's worth it to go deeper. Let's look at Burning-Tree Emissary. She's been debated endlessly, criticized or loved by many. She's obviously "better" in a Devotion build, and the current Monsters builds don't care about her at all (for the most part).
New information or new subtle ways of deck construction can change what is theoretically correct, or was incorrect before. The next point in tandem with this bear with me, this has nothing to do with BTE herself - I think it's completely safe to say that Gruul is on the road to evolving to splash a third color. It's now SAFE to splash that third color, and it's also being done because it NEEDS to be done - to fight the exploding popularity of the mirror in this archetype. We have access to new Scry-lands, and 8 scryland configurations in a midrangier shell are proving to have added or new consistency. These things go a very long way to helping with the time honored complaint of "this card is such a bad topdeck". Slightly new additions such as Courser of Kruphix do effect the way the deck interacts with itself. Since this entire format is defined by self-interaction, the penultimate example of it being Devotion, I think it pays to put every single card under the microscope now more than ever. It all adds up.
Back to BTE - Is she better than she was before? Perhaps, yes. Are you running 2 of the new Xenagods in your deck? BTE gains power with the addition of new cards, she was a great devotion enabler before, but she's even stronger now. What other angles do people not consider about this card? BTE in a deck allows it to play better from behind, or on the draw when you need to catch up on tempo and hit the ground running. She's not just a dump your hand vomit Grizzly Bears anymore, and can have a TON of small interactions within your deck.
-Having 4x BTE in your deck makes Xenagos, the Reveler go from 2-of good, to 3-of good, (IMO)"in a sense" - you can play Reveler as a Bloodbraid Elf of sorts on some turns, because you were able to deploy some early creatures for free/had more early creatures in the deck. Where in the GR Monsters builds, they have far less early creatures, and get stuck with Reveler in hand/not want to play him the same way a Devotion build would.
But in previous decks where she's been (rightly so) evaluated, such as Naya Blitz, she served a *completely* different role, I won't even go there.
None of this is probably new information to you. I'm wanting to help folks not only get up to speed quicker, but see all the subtle angles to our various card choices, because they do really matter in this devotion/self-deck interaction meta.
Hey, thanks for the great response. Just to nitpick, BTE only counts as a '2' for Xenagod's devotion, not 4 (You can't turn the god on with BTE and Elvish Mystic as your only other permanents). So I don't think that the value of BTE in Monsters is being substantially revised due to Born of the Gods being available. BTE probably still only belongs in Nykthos decks.
An additional point on the bolded section: How many scrylands is it safe to run in an aggro/midrange deck? Back in the heyday of Vivids, 10-11 was the absolute max, so I'd be leery of even going as high as 8 in a deck that wants to curve out every turn.
I think exploring a RUG Primer would be super usefully.
There is unexplored territory in the land of Kiora, Ral, AEtherling, Rapid Hybridization, Turn//Burn, etc...
Also... Keranos is a thing too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would be very interested in exploring/creating specifically a RUG Devotion Primer, as well as another Primer that's entirely different - "G/R Devotion vs G/R Monsters". The aim of that "Vs Primer" would be entirely different - it would be a functional, back to basics, very hard and deep look at the similarities between the two archetypes, ultimately showing the pros/cons/edges both have to offer, as the meta continues to shift. This is also largely due to the fact that this archetype is again, exploding in popularity, and I personally feel a megathread simply analyzing the intricate differences between the two decks could be beneficial for new folks.
I ask you folks, which of the two Primers do YOU feel would be more beneficial, or useful to this community?
EDIT: Comments are absolutely welcome too, and please more votes! I see the high view count as about 20 times higher than the number of votes already! :>
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9157664&postcount=1
South Carolina State Champion: 2012
It's basically just comparing Nykthos, BTE, Satyr, Nylea, Colossus with Mutavault, Mortars, Rampager, Stormbreath.
The devotion build can be more ridiculous, but is overall less consistent and is less able to interact with the opponent.
That being said, I'm not sure that such a primer would be anything other than interesting and educational as it wouldn't really be working towards any particular deck list as the others sort of do.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Monsters I've not piloted it enough, for the sake of discussion I'd like to see a primer that has the experts discuss the advantages of it.
Also @ Magicmerl - good questions, (I also have asked them myself a lot) I thought a lot on these last night and wanted to try and give you/anyone else asking this the best I can.
This will attempt to be the Wikipedia of Gruul decks, purely a REFERENCE Primer, not a discussion. I also do not mean to sound accusatory in the least towards our GR Aggro/Midrange thread, I feel it's just become a bit bloated. Those of us veterans/regulars who have kept up with it for awhile now know the ins and outs, and a few people can add a ton of pages discussing amongst themselves. I think this can be perhaps dissuading for somebody new to the archetype, say that they're legitimately serious and willing to learn this archetype, but do they really need to go through the headache of reading all the CHATTER to learn the finer/subtle/important details? I say no.
-By contrast, the GR Monsters or GR Devotion Primers have become more of a DISCUSSION board - people frequently talk matchups, and sideboarding consists of a vast majority of the posts, aka actual game-play. If you want to get "up to speed" on the current Primer Discussions, and the "latest how to and know how" you have to slog through 30+ pages of Q&A - I'm not suggesting that thread is bad or whatever, it's simply becoming a very hot spot to CHAT. It has become cluttered over time (GR Aggro/midrange more than Devotion). I think there can be a place where you theoretically read 2-3 pages of a very comprehensive series of posts, that have synthesized month's worth of information in a far shorter span of time, and save yourself the headache of seeing the same questions asked over and over (if you're somebody trying to "get up to speed").
-This "Primer" would look at what cards have been used previously (before Born of the Gods), and why, and really go into the intricacies of how these two decks have arrived up until now.
-This will be a very nuts and bolts thing, and nitpicky. It will also be updated with respect to the meta, and which cards *by themselves* become better/worse positioned. Ratings will change.
-A card "rating" system - I did this before and received a lot of positive feedback. Without writing a wall about it, I used a very simple "star rating" (zero stars being lowest, three stars being highest) for the three most relevant matchup categories a card can fall into - aggro, midrange, and control. For instance, Sylvan Caryatid gets a *** vs aggro, a * vs midrange, and a * vs control. These ratings will be in flux, and here's the real nitpicker - which build they are in, GR Devotion, or GR Monsters, can drastically effect a cards rating. My rating system was fair before, but it was trying to evaluate the cards in respect to BOTH decks, which is incorrect. The ratings need to be separate, for each cards, in the different builds, because even though the different builds share a lot of the same parts, the ways they interlock with each other are VERY different.
-What the hell does all this mean? It's for the sake of synthesizing all the information out there in a (hopefully) quicker, simpler, and easy to see for yourself way.
Now to answer your real question. I actually do agree with your sentiment here, and know from a lot of your posts over the past couple of months you're a knowledgeable player/etc. If I were to give a new player asking for the short answer, you just gave the really synthesized cliff notes version, and it's entirely valid - for the time being.
Here's where things change, and/or get more interesting, let me try to give one simple example, to try and prove the point that it's worth it to go deeper. Let's look at Burning-Tree Emissary. She's been debated endlessly, criticized or loved by many. She's obviously "better" in a Devotion build, and the current Monsters builds don't care about her at all (for the most part).
New information or new subtle ways of deck construction can change what is theoretically correct, or was incorrect before. The next point in tandem with this bear with me, this has nothing to do with BTE herself - I think it's completely safe to say that Gruul is on the road to evolving to splash a third color. It's now SAFE to splash that third color, and it's also being done because it NEEDS to be done - to fight the exploding popularity of the mirror in this archetype. We have access to new Scry-lands, and 8 scryland configurations in a midrangier shell are proving to have added or new consistency. These things go a very long way to helping with the time honored complaint of "this card is such a bad topdeck". Slightly new additions such as Courser of Kruphix do effect the way the deck interacts with itself. Since this entire format is defined by self-interaction, the penultimate example of it being Devotion, I think it pays to put every single card under the microscope now more than ever. It all adds up.
Back to BTE - Is she better than she was before? Perhaps, yes. Are you running 2 of the new Xenagods in your deck? BTE gains power with the addition of new cards, she was a great devotion enabler before, but she's even stronger now. What other angles do people not consider about this card? BTE in a deck allows it to play better from behind, or on the draw when you need to catch up on tempo and hit the ground running. She's not just a dump your hand vomit Grizzly Bears anymore, and can have a TON of small interactions within your deck.
-Having 4x BTE in your deck makes Xenagos, the Reveler go from 2-of good, to 3-of good, (IMO)"in a sense" - you can play Reveler as a Bloodbraid Elf of sorts on some turns, because you were able to deploy some early creatures for free/had more early creatures in the deck. Where in the GR Monsters builds, they have far less early creatures, and get stuck with Reveler in hand/not want to play him the same way a Devotion build would.
But in previous decks where she's been (rightly so) evaluated, such as Naya Blitz, she served a *completely* different role, I won't even go there.
None of this is probably new information to you. I'm wanting to help folks not only get up to speed quicker, but see all the subtle angles to our various card choices, because they do really matter in this devotion/self-deck interaction meta.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9157664&postcount=1
South Carolina State Champion: 2012
Hey, thanks for the great response. Just to nitpick, BTE only counts as a '2' for Xenagod's devotion, not 4 (You can't turn the god on with BTE and Elvish Mystic as your only other permanents). So I don't think that the value of BTE in Monsters is being substantially revised due to Born of the Gods being available. BTE probably still only belongs in Nykthos decks.
An additional point on the bolded section: How many scrylands is it safe to run in an aggro/midrange deck? Back in the heyday of Vivids, 10-11 was the absolute max, so I'd be leery of even going as high as 8 in a deck that wants to curve out every turn.
There is unexplored territory in the land of Kiora, Ral, AEtherling, Rapid Hybridization, Turn//Burn, etc...
Also... Keranos is a thing too.