While I don't think the 'play better answers' really works on Sol Ring level cards I do think it works in regards to 2 mana premium removal. As long as you aren't overloading on infinite cheap removal you should probably play aggro cards that match up better against them. Instead of adding better answers, add 'better' threats. One of the various 3 power 2drops might not be as good as one of the 2x1/1 token makers for 2 in your environment. Change up your threats before you weaken your removal, that is my advice.
Yeah, this ^ . Although I am personally overloading on infinite cheap removal, this advice still holds true. Also, in my case, I'm not running the more restrictive removal instead of the good removal. I'm actually running it in addition to the good removal.
Is this really true? I don't feel that way anymore
mmmm. I might have phrased that poorly. We do have some great finishers, but no real "bombs" outside of Mind Controls. Without Broodmother Dragons and Sunblast Angels floating around our control decks are more reliant on getting value than they are on simply reaching six/seven mana.
I'm less seeing building a 360 peasant cube as a puzzle to 'solve' (and 're-solve' each time a new set comes out), and more an opportunity to build a vast number of different environments each with their own feel, much the way Wizards attempts to do with each of their limited environments.
I'm a very casual player, and my cube is the majority of Magic I really play, so I'm not up to speed on high level technical play or evaluation in constructed for removal. Does cheaper / more powerful removal favor aggro or control more? I've heard it favors control more, as they can spend early turns stalling the aggro creatures to get to the late game. But I can see cheap removal also helping aggro by easily being able to remove early blockers while still laying other threats, or getting big tempo gains by Doom Blading their 5 drop.
Getting back to cube, we seem to poo-poo 'bad' removal because it makes decks objectively worse. But maybe a step down might actually make for better gameplay? Wizards have been nerfing removal for a while, and maybe there is something to be learned from this conscious effort.
I think I have some good advice on this topic. I run more removal than anyone else on the forums (by percentage), but I don't have problems with removal.dec being oppressive. There are some key things to note about the way control decks function limited. Taking the game late (playing defensively) is only good if your cards are either a) stronger/better or b) generating card advantage. Condition a) doesn't really apply at peasant level since there is such a lack of decent finishers, and the best cards aren't archetype limited (Shriekmaw, Flametongue Kavu, Control Magic). Condition b) is where our control decks get their wins. They delay the game with removal and blockers and pull ahead with Mind Controls, Mulldrifters, Skinrenders, Baleful Strixs, Looters, etc. I prefer removal that doesn't generate card advantage on its own for this very reason. It forces players to create a delicate balance of board interaction, removal, and card advantage within their deck, instead of letting removal just carry them.
The weaknesses of our control decks are generally 1) tempo/speed 2) reach 3) slippery/difficult to answer threats and 4) better card advantage. De-power your removal with those factors in mind.
Example: I run Victim of Night. It's a two mana instant speed removal spell that kills literally every nonblack creature in my cube (that doesn't have shroud). But, it costs BB meaning it can't be cast reliably on turn two (and isn't really playable in a three color deck). That makes it weak in area 1).
If you make all your removal conditional as opposed to first-pick catch all removal (Go for the Throat), then aggro and midrange decks beat out control decks.
There is a lot of strong, fun, viable removal that isn't without weaknesses. Take a look at my list for a lot of examples. Most of my black removal either costs double black, costs life to play (Vendetta), costs a lot of mana (Annihilate), is restrictive on deckbuilding (Tendrils of Corruption), or can only kill small things (Smother). This allows me to run an actual ton of removal (33/71 cards), without seeing oppressive removal.dec floating around.
You can also keep removal in check by having more resilient threats in your aggressive decks. If you have a hand of doom blades you are probably going to lose to turn one Llanowar Elves turn two Strangleroot Geist turn three Blastoderm. Regenerators, creatures that are hard to target or can dodge removal, low cost cards that have to be answered (time bombs like Experiment One), and cards that generate two for ones are all really great ways to shut down removal heavy decks.
Also, the speed of your format will always be a check on reactive decks.
I played a game last week where I kept Skinrender Mulldrifter Merfolk Looter Sudden Death Swamp Swamp Island and lost on turn 5. I think my hand was pretty good.
Triple red is absolutely supportable. Meteor Volley and Great Oak Guardian are both auto-includes for me, and frankly I'm astonished that anyone could feel otherwise about either of them.
I think 2 per deck is the ideal number so I'd be very comfortable at 3 (@360). I'd never want more than 3 in my deck and I'd never want more than one aristocrats deck in my pool.
I'm just talking about the sac outlets, not support for the archtype in general.
I don't think you usually want more than 3 sac outlets, so at 360 you would run three sac outlets if you supported 1 aristocrats deck per draft or 5-6 if you supported 2.
Top 3 are Carrion Feeder, Fallen Angel, Nantuko Husk.
Next 3 are probably Phyrexian Ghoul, Plagued Rusalka, and Vampiric Rites?
There's also Disciple of Griselbrand, Viscera Seer, Vampire Aristocrat.
That said, you probably meant that Husk goes into more decks and has more impact on more boards (not trying to correct you or anything, just checking if I understood correctly), and I think I agree.
Yep. And also that the husk is more threatening under ideal circumstances than the tog, and also more threatening in less than ideal circumstances. Ignoring dedicated graveyard interaction, the tog is rarely better than a 2/4 for 3.
Sorceress Queen for people who play Arabian Nights U3s, thoughts?
Sort of comparable to Saltfield Recluse which is very strong but significantly worse than every tapper. I don't think it's strong enough at our power level.
But an "unconditional" (if you cast it with RG) 3 mana, 3 damage sweeper is basically unparalleled at Peasant. I think it's the best sweeper effect available for us, period.
Recommend a fourth Gruul card after Ghor-Clan Rampager, Bloodbraid Elf, and Firespout (the last of which is more of a 4/5-color card, but still one I like a lot and want to keep).
The weaknesses of our control decks are generally 1) tempo/speed 2) reach 3) slippery/difficult to answer threats and 4) better card advantage. De-power your removal with those factors in mind.
Example: I run Victim of Night. It's a two mana instant speed removal spell that kills literally every nonblack creature in my cube (that doesn't have shroud). But, it costs BB meaning it can't be cast reliably on turn two (and isn't really playable in a three color deck). That makes it weak in area 1).
If you make all your removal conditional as opposed to first-pick catch all removal (Go for the Throat), then aggro and midrange decks beat out control decks.
There is a lot of strong, fun, viable removal that isn't without weaknesses. Take a look at my list for a lot of examples. Most of my black removal either costs double black, costs life to play (Vendetta), costs a lot of mana (Annihilate), is restrictive on deckbuilding (Tendrils of Corruption), or can only kill small things (Smother). This allows me to run an actual ton of removal (33/71 cards), without seeing oppressive removal.dec floating around.
You can also keep removal in check by having more resilient threats in your aggressive decks. If you have a hand of doom blades you are probably going to lose to turn one Llanowar Elves turn two Strangleroot Geist turn three Blastoderm. Regenerators, creatures that are hard to target or can dodge removal, low cost cards that have to be answered (time bombs like Experiment One), and cards that generate two for ones are all really great ways to shut down removal heavy decks.
Also, the speed of your format will always be a check on reactive decks.
I played a game last week where I kept Skinrender Mulldrifter Merfolk Looter Sudden Death Swamp Swamp Island and lost on turn 5. I think my hand was pretty good.
I'm just talking about the sac outlets, not support for the archtype in general.
I was just writing it as the 3/6 I would run personally at 360.
Top 3 are Carrion Feeder, Fallen Angel, Nantuko Husk.
Next 3 are probably Phyrexian Ghoul, Plagued Rusalka, and Vampiric Rites?
There's also Disciple of Griselbrand, Viscera Seer, Vampire Aristocrat.
We've talked about him before. A little off topic. The important thing I wanted to say was that Nantuko Husk is quite playable.
ditto what Leelue and Squirrely said.
Gruul, best to worst, in my opinion.
- Bloodbraid Elf
- Ghor-Clan Rampager
- Kird Ape
- Flinthoof Boar
- Boggart Ram-Gang
- Fanatic of Xenagos
- Firespout
- Gruul Guildmage
- Fires of Yavimaya
- Branching Bolt
- Burning-Tree Emissary
- Savage Twister
- Skarrg Guildmage
- Vengeful Rebirth
- Gruul War Chant (??? haven't played with it)
- Savage Ventmaw
The things that make Savage Twister good are the fact that it kills Air Elementals (Jetting Glasskite) but leaves your Blastoderm in play.