On Tuesday, a friend pulled out a Squadron Hawk/Scroll Rack deck for Legacy. It got me thinking about all the uses for Squadron Hawk. What could you do if you were given 3 free white cards? Here's what I got:
The deck has many interactions. First, Shining Shoal is a great card in the current meta which is now filled with aggro. The damage is redirected and not prevented, which means Skullcrack and the sorts does nothing. Also, the damage retains its own character. For example, if you Shining Shoal a Blighted Agent to itself, it will deal infect counters to itself (thus killing it at the end of turn). Now, you can pitch a card to Shining Shoal. So why not use one of those extra Squadron Hawks? That's the easy stuff. You can of course go with bigger white spells. I'm thinking Spectral Procession. It has a CMC of 6 which means Shining Shoal can redirect all of the damage from a Reality Smasher. Shining Shoal is a great tempo card to disrupt early aggro and allows you to bluff weakness by tapping out. Second, Squadron Hawk, in addition to being pitched to Shining Shoal, can also be pitched to Sunscour. Play Hawk, get three Hawks, pitch two to Sunscour. It's basically a two mana wrath at that point. But more importantly, it's squadron hawk! Finally, we have the boros package. The 4 Reckoners and 3 Spitemares will gum up the ground. Against Eldrazi, they are very effective in causing damage back to the opponent. Of course, there's the obligatory Blasphemous Act for big damage. Who doesn't like that? The Raise the Alarms and Spectral Processions can crank up the creature count quickly.
As an anti-aggro deck, it should be very well positioned in the field.
I'm new to this deck so all these comments are great.
One question - how often do the fastlands end up coming into play tapped for you?
I don't own any right now so I've been using painlands. That said, I've also used 2 Crumbling Vestige. They've been doing really well for me (I also run storage lands so the colorless can always be used). It's a non-bo with Pentad Prism but I've yet to come into that situation. Has anyone else tried it? It's allowing me to experiment with 1 Melira in the sideboard. The infect match-up is just awful.
Got it. What you've described is what some people call "political correctness," liberalism (small L), and so forth. Perhaps Magic should be like pro-wrestling. We can have heels. For example, you would be a perfect heel for conservatives, some Libertarians, and others who think you talk dangerously. We would root for you to lose on camera. We could have Zach be a heel for all the SJW out there. They can root for him to lose as well. After the Goyf-Gate fiasco, I know I root for Owen and Huey to lose every single match they are on camera. Nothing too personal but I view them as heels now.
Back on topic. Your talking points do make a certain percentage of the population uncomfortable. Perhaps it's the abrasiveness or more likely the high-minded, quasi-arrogant attitude ("it makes me smile" is starting to edge towards fighting words) that would put people on the defensive. Similar to how moderators here ban people temporarily for infractions, what happens if WotC starts with 1 week bans?
Again, WotC is heading towards an unworkable framework or political correctness. Last I checked, Congress is controlled by Republicans and throwing out the "PC" card is certainly going to make WotC's overseers quite miserable if it gets there.
Yes, the Mozilla guy should have resigned. Not only was he a bigot, he made public statements that led to his company getting a ton of negative press and people threatening to boycott. It was a dumb move for an executive to make. Replace gay marriage with interracial marriage. Now would we care if he was forced to step down? I think not.
Further, you ARE making a ridiculous hypothetical slippery slope. One guy got banned for having been convicted of rape and there being press about it. This doesn't mean the next logical step is that the Wizards Gestapo is knocking on your door demanding to see your voter registration and entire history of opinions. Don't be absurd. And yes, obviously some positions SHOULD get you banned from magic. If you were a brazenly outspoken white supremacist, or Islamic terrorist supporter, or some other equally horrible thing, wizards could and should ban you. We may not be quite there yet with gay marriage, but we will be in 20 years, when (thankfully) expressing such a backward, bigoted viewpoint about equal protection under the law WILL be grounds for public mocking and being forced to resign. No one makes you be a bigot.
Edit - Oh, and before all the free speech crap starts.
I think you've proven my point. By calling the Mozilla guy bigoted, and any position against gay marriage bigoted, you've essentially put at least 40% of the United States at odds with your position. Your position does not create a safe environment for people who may have differing opinions. That position of course can easily be flipped around to those who are against gay marriage. Depending on the state, such opinions can be a problem. "Your speech makes me uncomfortable and I can't have you playing magic because I will associate you with your speech." You call this a ridiculous hypothetical slippery slope. However, Brendan Eich made a contribution to prop 8, nothing more. What "public statements" are you talking about? He was outed, things cascaded, and he was pushed out. I fail to see how Zach Jesse is any different in terms of past conduct being made an issue when it has little semblance to him playing magic.
Finally, you say "some positions SHOULD get you banned from magic." Who should be the final arbiter on that? I'd like to know YOUR positions because who knows, perhaps YOU will be in charge of WotC policy in the future?
Really? I find your lack of concern and characterization of this all as some sort of amusement ("a fun diversion") to be quite disturbing.
This isn't a hypothetical slippery slope. We are talking convictions today but unpopular stances may be tomorrow. I'll give you a really easy example: Take Brendan Eich. He supported Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman and was forced to resign from Mozilla, despite it having no impact. If my position on gay marriage makes someone uncomfortable, should I be banned? Can I join the DCI? What about your political affiliation? Can I ban you from playing Magic in the state of Texas/Washington state where your political affiliation is likely to offend one state or another? Who do you support for president? Can I be banned for wearing a campaign button to a Grand Prix because it makes WotC appear to be endorsing? If [Insert MtG celebrity] makes a contribution to candidate X, can I say his politics makes me very uncomfortable? (see Chik-fil-a boycott) WotC has gotten into the business of minding people outside of Magic. No good outcome can come out of this.
The Zach Jesse story was so ridiculous that I wrote a 3 page letter to WotC and cc'd their local newspaper. Hopefully that will get some traction and have WotC explain what is going on.
WotC's actions epitomize the idea of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Zach's crime pre-dates the banning by 10 years, and WotC has no proof since then that Zach has committed any other crimes.
Their pretense of community safety has only backfired. The question players should ask is whether WotC intends to ban "undesirables" from the game and who counts as one. Apparently an old conviction for drugs doesn't count. What if Donald Trump wants to play? What if Chick-fil-A wants to open a store? The idea of judging people outside their conduct at the table is appalling and I think constitutes a massive intrusion into a person's privacy. Nobody in the "pro" Magic community is a paid athlete where the media follows them all the time. Players follow our MtG "pros" when they are primarily playing Magic. We don't usually look to them for dating, financial, or social advice. They are not the proto-typical "role models" you think of. What they do outside their game time should primarily be their own business. WotC is not a nanny-state, nor should they be. What anybody has done in the distant past should especially not be WotC's business unless recent events dictate otherwise. So far, I haven't seen a thing.
That said, WotC's policy is hamfisted and Zach's ban needs to be reversed. If he is going to be banned for any period of time, WotC needs to articulate some guidelines and show how it applies. Clearly Zach's banning is no longer a "private matter," which is the weasle-word used by companies and the government to say "we really don't want to explain ourselves." This is now a public concern of great importance to the MtG community.
If nothing changes, WotC needs to have all players fill out a questionnaire under penalty of perjury, so WotC has fair access to ALL potentially embarrassing/concerning/damaging information to the brand, such as have you ever stolen anything, lied to your mother, overused your credit card, did drugs, cheated on an exam, cheated on an SO, thinks Greedo shot first, and so forth. Otherwise, you are going to have opposition researchers like Levin (look up his bio, he used to do political campaign work) pick out individuals for targeting and with a few followers, persecute individuals into an arbitrary punishment by WotC.
Just got back into Modern infect and I was hoping the forum could give me some help.
Has the meta shifted away from U/G infect such that 12 infect creatures really isn't enough? The blue splash is very nice for countermagic, Blighted Agent, and some deck manipulation. However, against decks like Grixis with loads of removal, is it worth shooting for the goldfish Turn 2/Turn 3 or a deck that is better suited for the long haul? There's a PPTQ coming up and I'm trying to get ideas. So far, here's what I've been playing:
With some luck, I was able to go 3-0 in a weekly against Soul Sisters, Grixis Twin, and Tron. With about 25 creatures, I think I can grind out control decks. Ichorclaw Mir has been very good. With Rancor and lots of exalted triggers, I've put opponents in no-win situations in trying to block him. Both Rancor and Predator's Strike have allowed me to grind through Spirit tokens and I think they are very much underappreciated.
The lists are completely different because the backup shell is different. The Heroic version is exactly that, a U/W heroic shell, minus the Ordeals and swapping Crusaders in lieu of their 2 drops. The heroic backup plan combo plan is it can allow for big creatures to punch through with Akroan Crusader or God's Willing.
The Tokens version is a R/W Tokens deck, minus the Triplicate Spirits. It has no backup combo plan because it doesn't chain spells other than with Stoke the Flames. Rather its backup plan is burn like Jeskai Tempo. After sideboard, it can go into mostly Jeskai Tempo.
Which deck is better? Hard to say. They both have its merits. The tokens deck is much more susceptible to ALL forms of anti-red hate, meaning Drown in Sorrow, Anger of the Gods, Scouring Sands, and Bile Blight. The heroic version cannot burn the opponent or its creatures. Basically, if you think U/W is positioned better, stick with Heroic. If you think R/W tokens is better, go with Tokens.
Card draw is different as well. Heroic cantrips while Tokens doesn't (two Digs isn't that many). Heroic will combo off more often due to the number of cards seen on average.
The mana bases are different. I think tokens runs too many lands but it curves very differently. One deck gets screwed (Heroic) while one deck gets flooded (tokens).
What do you think about Mindbreak Trap in the sideboard? At the SCG Open in Oakland, I ended up playing against two Charbelcher decks. It was insta-death before I could even play a card. Leyline of Sanctity is stronger but they can see it coming.
I suppose it can work against Oops, All Spells!, Charbelcher, and Storm decks.
Technically, Ivan played:
R1 - Jund Monsters
R2 - R/G Monsters
R3 - U/W Control (was actually a draw but opponent conceded)
R4 - Temur Monsters (Qtr Finalist)
R5 - Abzan Control
R6 - Jeskai Aggro (Vidi Wijaya)
R7 - U/W Heroic
R8 - G/B Constellations
R9 - Abzan (Semi-Finalist)
R10 - ID
Ivan was probably lucky to be holding the Negate. However, the Ajani's Presence on Akroan Crusader would likely have been a blowout anyway since it would chain the next turn into Dragon Mantle, God's Willing and Retraction Helix, which we know he drew, never mind the replacement card for Negate or whatever he would draw off Dragon Mantle.
You know... after going 1-2 last night with the deck, with my two losses to Mono Red and one win against the mirror, I'm open to suggestions on more hate against mono-red. I substituted out two Nyx-Fleece Ram from the SB at the last minute, assuming Abzan and other decks would take care of mono red for me. However, if it gets rampant, I may need to add more hate, such as Magma Spray or even Mortal's Ardor.
As for the Jeskai Charm issue, I've contemplated going back and forth with Magma Jet, Ajani's Presence, or even Stratus Walk. The Charm may very well be the flex spot in the deck for whatever your meta. In my place, maybe it is Magma Jet due to a heavy red presence.
Finally, it's really strange playing against the mirror. I guess I now understand the helplessness involved when you see the opponent assembling the pieces and knowing that you probably can't do a thing about it. At the same time, the ground game is very complicated when both sides have mana up. Attacking becomes an incredibly dangerous proposition.
Trailblazers are essential. For example, Turn 2 Fleecemane, respond with Trailblazer. Hit it with Heroic. Now a 1/5 wall. Same goes for Siege Rhinos. Abzan is a hard matchup already and on the draw, you need those.
It's not a tuned list by any means, such as the random Jeskai Charms that do almost nothing and were hardly played.
Jeskai Charms are an essential part of Game 1 because it provides the most flexibility. Bounce (and predict next turn's draw), burn, or pump in a deck with heroics or weenies. That seems good. Two of them seems like the right spot. The alternatives appear worse. More land seems like a dead slot. Magma Jet would be a semi-waste against Abzhan decks since it doesn't hit much and losing a card, even though it scryes 2, isn't worth it. Triton Tactics doesn't have enough raw power. Extra creatures that cost 2 or more would not improve the deck's flow since it has enough creatures. They can always be sided out in game 2.
You can go infinite triggers with Ascendancy, 2 creatures, Retraction Helix, and Springleaf Drum. Creature 1 taps for Drum, Creature 2 with Retraction returns Drum. Play Drum, untap creatures. Repeat.
I built a R/W/U shell using Favored Hoplite, Lagonna Band Trailblazer, Monastery Swiftspear and other cheap drops. The deck naturally runs 4 God's Willing to protect itself and that becomes the kill condition when you attack with protection. The deck also has the ability to do a manual beat down since it cantrips Defiant Strikes and Dragon Mantle.
I took it to GP LA. I crushed all the Jeskai decks but only won 1 out of 3 matches against Abzan. My SB was inadequate under the circumstances. Missed Day 2 at 6-3.
4 Boros Reckoner
3 Spitemare
1 Harvest Pyre
1 Isochron Sceptre
2 Raise the Alarm
3 Path to Exile
4 Lightning Helix
4 Boros Charm
4 Shining Shoal
4 Spectral Procession
1 Sunscour
2 Blasphemous Act
4 Arid Mesa
4 Flagstones of Trokair
2 Ghost Quarter
2 Mountain
5 Plains
2 Needle Spires
The deck has many interactions. First, Shining Shoal is a great card in the current meta which is now filled with aggro. The damage is redirected and not prevented, which means Skullcrack and the sorts does nothing. Also, the damage retains its own character. For example, if you Shining Shoal a Blighted Agent to itself, it will deal infect counters to itself (thus killing it at the end of turn). Now, you can pitch a card to Shining Shoal. So why not use one of those extra Squadron Hawks? That's the easy stuff. You can of course go with bigger white spells. I'm thinking Spectral Procession. It has a CMC of 6 which means Shining Shoal can redirect all of the damage from a Reality Smasher. Shining Shoal is a great tempo card to disrupt early aggro and allows you to bluff weakness by tapping out. Second, Squadron Hawk, in addition to being pitched to Shining Shoal, can also be pitched to Sunscour. Play Hawk, get three Hawks, pitch two to Sunscour. It's basically a two mana wrath at that point. But more importantly, it's squadron hawk! Finally, we have the boros package. The 4 Reckoners and 3 Spitemares will gum up the ground. Against Eldrazi, they are very effective in causing damage back to the opponent. Of course, there's the obligatory Blasphemous Act for big damage. Who doesn't like that? The Raise the Alarms and Spectral Processions can crank up the creature count quickly.
As an anti-aggro deck, it should be very well positioned in the field.
Here's my initial Sideboard thoughts:
Anyway, thoughts? I think this may be something workable.
One question - how often do the fastlands end up coming into play tapped for you?
I don't own any right now so I've been using painlands. That said, I've also used 2 Crumbling Vestige. They've been doing really well for me (I also run storage lands so the colorless can always be used). It's a non-bo with Pentad Prism but I've yet to come into that situation. Has anyone else tried it? It's allowing me to experiment with 1 Melira in the sideboard. The infect match-up is just awful.
Got it. What you've described is what some people call "political correctness," liberalism (small L), and so forth. Perhaps Magic should be like pro-wrestling. We can have heels. For example, you would be a perfect heel for conservatives, some Libertarians, and others who think you talk dangerously. We would root for you to lose on camera. We could have Zach be a heel for all the SJW out there. They can root for him to lose as well. After the Goyf-Gate fiasco, I know I root for Owen and Huey to lose every single match they are on camera. Nothing too personal but I view them as heels now.
Back on topic. Your talking points do make a certain percentage of the population uncomfortable. Perhaps it's the abrasiveness or more likely the high-minded, quasi-arrogant attitude ("it makes me smile" is starting to edge towards fighting words) that would put people on the defensive. Similar to how moderators here ban people temporarily for infractions, what happens if WotC starts with 1 week bans?
Again, WotC is heading towards an unworkable framework or political correctness. Last I checked, Congress is controlled by Republicans and throwing out the "PC" card is certainly going to make WotC's overseers quite miserable if it gets there.
How witty, an xkcd quote. Can I respond in kind?
http://andrewsteele.co.uk/opinion/xkcd-v-idiocracy/
I think you've proven my point. By calling the Mozilla guy bigoted, and any position against gay marriage bigoted, you've essentially put at least 40% of the United States at odds with your position. Your position does not create a safe environment for people who may have differing opinions. That position of course can easily be flipped around to those who are against gay marriage. Depending on the state, such opinions can be a problem. "Your speech makes me uncomfortable and I can't have you playing magic because I will associate you with your speech." You call this a ridiculous hypothetical slippery slope. However, Brendan Eich made a contribution to prop 8, nothing more. What "public statements" are you talking about? He was outed, things cascaded, and he was pushed out. I fail to see how Zach Jesse is any different in terms of past conduct being made an issue when it has little semblance to him playing magic.
Finally, you say "some positions SHOULD get you banned from magic." Who should be the final arbiter on that? I'd like to know YOUR positions because who knows, perhaps YOU will be in charge of WotC policy in the future?
This isn't a hypothetical slippery slope. We are talking convictions today but unpopular stances may be tomorrow. I'll give you a really easy example: Take Brendan Eich. He supported Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman and was forced to resign from Mozilla, despite it having no impact. If my position on gay marriage makes someone uncomfortable, should I be banned? Can I join the DCI? What about your political affiliation? Can I ban you from playing Magic in the state of Texas/Washington state where your political affiliation is likely to offend one state or another? Who do you support for president? Can I be banned for wearing a campaign button to a Grand Prix because it makes WotC appear to be endorsing? If [Insert MtG celebrity] makes a contribution to candidate X, can I say his politics makes me very uncomfortable? (see Chik-fil-a boycott) WotC has gotten into the business of minding people outside of Magic. No good outcome can come out of this.
WotC's actions epitomize the idea of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Zach's crime pre-dates the banning by 10 years, and WotC has no proof since then that Zach has committed any other crimes.
Their pretense of community safety has only backfired. The question players should ask is whether WotC intends to ban "undesirables" from the game and who counts as one. Apparently an old conviction for drugs doesn't count. What if Donald Trump wants to play? What if Chick-fil-A wants to open a store? The idea of judging people outside their conduct at the table is appalling and I think constitutes a massive intrusion into a person's privacy. Nobody in the "pro" Magic community is a paid athlete where the media follows them all the time. Players follow our MtG "pros" when they are primarily playing Magic. We don't usually look to them for dating, financial, or social advice. They are not the proto-typical "role models" you think of. What they do outside their game time should primarily be their own business. WotC is not a nanny-state, nor should they be. What anybody has done in the distant past should especially not be WotC's business unless recent events dictate otherwise. So far, I haven't seen a thing.
That said, WotC's policy is hamfisted and Zach's ban needs to be reversed. If he is going to be banned for any period of time, WotC needs to articulate some guidelines and show how it applies. Clearly Zach's banning is no longer a "private matter," which is the weasle-word used by companies and the government to say "we really don't want to explain ourselves." This is now a public concern of great importance to the MtG community.
If nothing changes, WotC needs to have all players fill out a questionnaire under penalty of perjury, so WotC has fair access to ALL potentially embarrassing/concerning/damaging information to the brand, such as have you ever stolen anything, lied to your mother, overused your credit card, did drugs, cheated on an exam, cheated on an SO, thinks Greedo shot first, and so forth. Otherwise, you are going to have opposition researchers like Levin (look up his bio, he used to do political campaign work) pick out individuals for targeting and with a few followers, persecute individuals into an arbitrary punishment by WotC.
Has the meta shifted away from U/G infect such that 12 infect creatures really isn't enough? The blue splash is very nice for countermagic, Blighted Agent, and some deck manipulation. However, against decks like Grixis with loads of removal, is it worth shooting for the goldfish Turn 2/Turn 3 or a deck that is better suited for the long haul? There's a PPTQ coming up and I'm trying to get ideas. So far, here's what I've been playing:
Mono-Green Infect
4 Cathedral of War
1 Pendelhaven
4 Forest
6 fetch lands
1 Dryad Arbor
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Spellskite
4 Necropede
4 Ichorclaw Myr
2 Viridian Corrupter
3 Rancor
2 Apostle's Blessing
4 Vines of Vastwood
4 Become Immense
2 Wild Defiance
1 Stonewood Invocation
With some luck, I was able to go 3-0 in a weekly against Soul Sisters, Grixis Twin, and Tron. With about 25 creatures, I think I can grind out control decks. Ichorclaw Mir has been very good. With Rancor and lots of exalted triggers, I've put opponents in no-win situations in trying to block him. Both Rancor and Predator's Strike have allowed me to grind through Spirit tokens and I think they are very much underappreciated.
Any suggestions for a mono-green sideboard?
The Tokens version is a R/W Tokens deck, minus the Triplicate Spirits. It has no backup combo plan because it doesn't chain spells other than with Stoke the Flames. Rather its backup plan is burn like Jeskai Tempo. After sideboard, it can go into mostly Jeskai Tempo.
Which deck is better? Hard to say. They both have its merits. The tokens deck is much more susceptible to ALL forms of anti-red hate, meaning Drown in Sorrow, Anger of the Gods, Scouring Sands, and Bile Blight. The heroic version cannot burn the opponent or its creatures. Basically, if you think U/W is positioned better, stick with Heroic. If you think R/W tokens is better, go with Tokens.
Card draw is different as well. Heroic cantrips while Tokens doesn't (two Digs isn't that many). Heroic will combo off more often due to the number of cards seen on average.
The mana bases are different. I think tokens runs too many lands but it curves very differently. One deck gets screwed (Heroic) while one deck gets flooded (tokens).
I suppose it can work against Oops, All Spells!, Charbelcher, and Storm decks.
Is that a surprise?
R1 - Jund Monsters
R2 - R/G Monsters
R3 - U/W Control (was actually a draw but opponent conceded)
R4 - Temur Monsters (Qtr Finalist)
R5 - Abzan Control
R6 - Jeskai Aggro (Vidi Wijaya)
R7 - U/W Heroic
R8 - G/B Constellations
R9 - Abzan (Semi-Finalist)
R10 - ID
Ivan was probably lucky to be holding the Negate. However, the Ajani's Presence on Akroan Crusader would likely have been a blowout anyway since it would chain the next turn into Dragon Mantle, God's Willing and Retraction Helix, which we know he drew, never mind the replacement card for Negate or whatever he would draw off Dragon Mantle.
As for the Jeskai Charm issue, I've contemplated going back and forth with Magma Jet, Ajani's Presence, or even Stratus Walk. The Charm may very well be the flex spot in the deck for whatever your meta. In my place, maybe it is Magma Jet due to a heavy red presence.
Finally, it's really strange playing against the mirror. I guess I now understand the helplessness involved when you see the opponent assembling the pieces and knowing that you probably can't do a thing about it. At the same time, the ground game is very complicated when both sides have mana up. Attacking becomes an incredibly dangerous proposition.
Jeskai Charms are an essential part of Game 1 because it provides the most flexibility. Bounce (and predict next turn's draw), burn, or pump in a deck with heroics or weenies. That seems good. Two of them seems like the right spot. The alternatives appear worse. More land seems like a dead slot. Magma Jet would be a semi-waste against Abzhan decks since it doesn't hit much and losing a card, even though it scryes 2, isn't worth it. Triton Tactics doesn't have enough raw power. Extra creatures that cost 2 or more would not improve the deck's flow since it has enough creatures. They can always be sided out in game 2.
I built a R/W/U shell using Favored Hoplite, Lagonna Band Trailblazer, Monastery Swiftspear and other cheap drops. The deck naturally runs 4 God's Willing to protect itself and that becomes the kill condition when you attack with protection. The deck also has the ability to do a manual beat down since it cantrips Defiant Strikes and Dragon Mantle.
I took it to GP LA. I crushed all the Jeskai decks but only won 1 out of 3 matches against Abzan. My SB was inadequate under the circumstances. Missed Day 2 at 6-3.