I've loved playing this, but I have kind of shaped the deck around it. That mean only 2 Ezuri to avoid dead drops, no Warcallers, and everything in main/sideboard can be hit by it except for another copy.
Its a may effect, you dont have to play Ezuri if there is one on the board already.
Am I the only one considering playing this with bloodbraid elf in the same deck? =/ the brainstorm makes u cascade your hand, plus the unsummon makes you bloodbraid every turn, creating massive card advantage. This card is bound to get broken... easily 20+ while its in standard.
Im surprised a jacerator deck didnt t8. with spread em and quenchable, a blue deck with a bunch of fog effects seems like a decent option
except rdw still kills fog, even with a reduced quenchable game 1. Those who thinks otherwise and that sunspring makes fog have a good match up against rdw needs some serious playtesting.
They need creature card advantage for themselves in a ranger of eos way so they can bounce back from a sweeper quicker. Like:
Vampire Summoner
2B
Creature-Vampire
When Vampire Summoner enters the battlefield search for a vampire with converted mana cost equal to or lower than the number of swamps in play and add it to your hand.
2/3
they dont need more wrath protection, white based controls is arguebly the easiest matchup for vampires. That being said the card you propose is way over the curve they would never print that.
The fact that 4 out of 409 people played it says more I think. It's not like the deck was a secret or unrefined. It was a well-known deck and yet only 4 people played it? That's pretty bad. I don't think it's trash, but it definitely has some issues.
thats a lot better than bringing 30+ to worlds and get a horrible overall result. Vampire is at least on par with nissa right now if not better. A lot of pros, along with a lot of people on mtgs avoid the deck like a plague because they think there is something "noob" about playing vampires, and dismiss vampires as a horrible deck without ever playtesting. I am not saying its the nut high in the format right now, but results and other people / my own testing shows vampire is definately a lot better than a lot of decks on that worlds's list with more pilots. The fact that less people playing it but getting better results speaks a lot of volume. There is nothing "noob" about vampires or playing vampires, it requires as much skill as other midrange decks to play, maybe easier to build because of the condense card pool, its just another deck that can and have performed pretty good.
Can we please move that joke of a deck Vampires out of Pro Tour Circuit? Worlds basically showed without any doubt that the pro-level players think that deck is complete trash.
how does world prove any deck outside of jund and boros is any better than vampire in the format. Nissa had a huge turn out and got destroyed, naya lightsaber won worlds but only had a 4-2 record day 1, and if you watched the video he could of easily lost against boros in game 4 of the semi-finals if the other player didnt sideboard out the 2nd bushwhcker with win on the board. RDW only had a few more shows than vampire and had a worse result along with the planewalker based control decks. Vampire had a very good finish to deck played ratio, and if you are argueing that limited sample size + not a lot of people played it as a argument, half of the other decks in the PT forum can be removed as well, such as MWC and RDW, and those had worse showings in the result.
If anything worlds proved to us that with the attention diverting away from vampires it can do very very good in the metagame, seeing how the decks that design to beat jund fall very hard to vampires.
I dont think you can do anything about it at this point, just post your original post in the standard, developing conpetitive, mono black control thread, might take a find.
This is the block constructed forum... other then that it looks ok, nothing amazing because MBC jsut doesnt work with consistent card advantage (arena, dark confidant etc). Need duress and mind sludge, vampire hexmage to the board, and bring in against planeswalkers, against non-planewalkers black knight serves much better purpose. Malakir bloodwitch should be included cause it poses problems for many decks. Disfigure works better than doomblade and hideous end in the prosent metagame.
Are you guys just pulling numbers out of your asses? I seen almost half a dozen people refer to jund being 50% of the metagame at worlds, when in fact it was just over a third... stop giving fault statistics to confuse people please.
As for the other question, jund is more popular than affinity because affinity was a lot easier to hate. We can argue that the naya lightsaber deck was designed to beat jund, but jund still had a reasonble match up against it. If you saw the 04 worlds where it was a G/W slide deck designed to beat affinity, that was a BLOWOUT. 4 oxidize 4 viridian shaman 4 wrath, slide, akroma's vengence, wing shards, eternal witness. The other decks in that format was tooth and nail, big red, U/W control all had at least 8 cards that did nothing to any other deck in the format except affinity, and proud to play it. Not to mention a tooth and nail or a akroma's vengence is pretty much gameover against affinity, and that still didnt stop the deck from being popular.
I think one thing people need to realize is there is nothing wrong with netdecking, and there is nothing wrong with avoiding netdecking and attempt to build your own deck, is a matter of personal choice. People are getting flamed left and right for playing the proven good building, and other people are getting flamed for attempting to build their own deck. If those two points can settle there would be a lot less flaming in these forums.
What I stated is that fetchlands does thin and does cost you life, different people have different perspective on how much each life is worth. In some formats 1 life is not worth much, in another format 1 life is worth a lot. There ARE monocolor decks in the onslaut era that didnt ran any interaction except thinning, top of my head is mono black cleric and MBC, latter being ody-ons and prior being mir-ons. There is 1 mono-black list in that euro link that ran fetches with a few skeletal scrying in the board, which I wont use as an example because there is, although only in game 2/3, still interacts with fetch lands. But I played t2 during that era, both mono-black-cleric(the scion deck) and MBC(a few) played fetches because of cabal archon life gain / corrupt, allowing those decks to offset the life loss pretty easily, in this case losing 1 life is less important than the increase in quality of draws. All in all it depends on the meta, I dont think anyone disagree here when I say there IS a gain, and there IS a loss.
You can't measure the minor thinning with 1 life ALL the time, even if the thinning is worse most of the times than 1 life, it does have its uses. If the meta is filled with fog deck / infi-combo decks, the 1 life wouldnt be relevant at all and everyone would run them in a mono-color deck, even against control its very very helpful. You cant just look at the current meta and say no deck have ever played fetch in a mono-deck for thinning and no deck ever will play them for thinning, the FACT is that it DOES THIN THE DECK,and whether the thinning is better than 1 life is RELATIVE and not ABSOLUTE.
I think we can conclude that in the current meta, mono-color shouldnt play fetches cause the life-loss isnt worth it. It's a little better in the last standard with t2 with more control decks present, but for the sake of the argument lets say overall 1 life is better than thin in that standard metagame. However the fact is that fetchlands does thin, even if its to a small degree, and life loss have no direct corrlation with the fact it does thin; thinning deck, eventhough minor, is totally separate from life gain so we cant use quantitative measurement to measure which one is better. It proves deck thinning is not a myth and in a control/combo heavy metagame, it would be worth it.
The OP is obviously wrong in saying thinning is a myth because thinning is obviously not a myth, by removing lands from your deck you WILL draw less lands. Whether fetch should be played in a monocolor deck with no other purpose but to thin comes down to the metagame and the value of life vs better draw. Both side is being right in that fetchlands can be played in mono color decks, as shown by the onslaunt block t2, but right now it probably shouldnt because of the insane amount of creature based aggro / midrange in the format.
Saying 1 life is never worth the extra few % of draw all the time is being ignorant and never played in the mono-red vs wrath/vengence/slide era. Saying 1 life is always worth the extra draw is also being ignorant and does not realize that against 90% of the deck in the format, the extra life helps more than the thinning. In matchup of control vs aggro, the life of the aggro player is rarely ever relevant because if the control player dealt 18 19 damage, he stablized the board long before that, and having that extra life rarely ever matters, much less than the improved draw.
So in conclusion, it comes down to metagame.... Thinning DOES occur, but is it worth the life? Thats up to the individual player to decide.
Its a may effect, you dont have to play Ezuri if there is one on the board already.
except rdw still kills fog, even with a reduced quenchable game 1. Those who thinks otherwise and that sunspring makes fog have a good match up against rdw needs some serious playtesting.
they dont need more wrath protection, white based controls is arguebly the easiest matchup for vampires. That being said the card you propose is way over the curve they would never print that.
thats a lot better than bringing 30+ to worlds and get a horrible overall result. Vampire is at least on par with nissa right now if not better. A lot of pros, along with a lot of people on mtgs avoid the deck like a plague because they think there is something "noob" about playing vampires, and dismiss vampires as a horrible deck without ever playtesting. I am not saying its the nut high in the format right now, but results and other people / my own testing shows vampire is definately a lot better than a lot of decks on that worlds's list with more pilots. The fact that less people playing it but getting better results speaks a lot of volume. There is nothing "noob" about vampires or playing vampires, it requires as much skill as other midrange decks to play, maybe easier to build because of the condense card pool, its just another deck that can and have performed pretty good.
how does world prove any deck outside of jund and boros is any better than vampire in the format. Nissa had a huge turn out and got destroyed, naya lightsaber won worlds but only had a 4-2 record day 1, and if you watched the video he could of easily lost against boros in game 4 of the semi-finals if the other player didnt sideboard out the 2nd bushwhcker with win on the board. RDW only had a few more shows than vampire and had a worse result along with the planewalker based control decks. Vampire had a very good finish to deck played ratio, and if you are argueing that limited sample size + not a lot of people played it as a argument, half of the other decks in the PT forum can be removed as well, such as MWC and RDW, and those had worse showings in the result.
If anything worlds proved to us that with the attention diverting away from vampires it can do very very good in the metagame, seeing how the decks that design to beat jund fall very hard to vampires.
As for the other question, jund is more popular than affinity because affinity was a lot easier to hate. We can argue that the naya lightsaber deck was designed to beat jund, but jund still had a reasonble match up against it. If you saw the 04 worlds where it was a G/W slide deck designed to beat affinity, that was a BLOWOUT. 4 oxidize 4 viridian shaman 4 wrath, slide, akroma's vengence, wing shards, eternal witness. The other decks in that format was tooth and nail, big red, U/W control all had at least 8 cards that did nothing to any other deck in the format except affinity, and proud to play it. Not to mention a tooth and nail or a akroma's vengence is pretty much gameover against affinity, and that still didnt stop the deck from being popular.
You can't measure the minor thinning with 1 life ALL the time, even if the thinning is worse most of the times than 1 life, it does have its uses. If the meta is filled with fog deck / infi-combo decks, the 1 life wouldnt be relevant at all and everyone would run them in a mono-color deck, even against control its very very helpful. You cant just look at the current meta and say no deck have ever played fetch in a mono-deck for thinning and no deck ever will play them for thinning, the FACT is that it DOES THIN THE DECK,and whether the thinning is better than 1 life is RELATIVE and not ABSOLUTE.
I think we can conclude that in the current meta, mono-color shouldnt play fetches cause the life-loss isnt worth it. It's a little better in the last standard with t2 with more control decks present, but for the sake of the argument lets say overall 1 life is better than thin in that standard metagame. However the fact is that fetchlands does thin, even if its to a small degree, and life loss have no direct corrlation with the fact it does thin; thinning deck, eventhough minor, is totally separate from life gain so we cant use quantitative measurement to measure which one is better. It proves deck thinning is not a myth and in a control/combo heavy metagame, it would be worth it.
Saying 1 life is never worth the extra few % of draw all the time is being ignorant and never played in the mono-red vs wrath/vengence/slide era. Saying 1 life is always worth the extra draw is also being ignorant and does not realize that against 90% of the deck in the format, the extra life helps more than the thinning. In matchup of control vs aggro, the life of the aggro player is rarely ever relevant because if the control player dealt 18 19 damage, he stablized the board long before that, and having that extra life rarely ever matters, much less than the improved draw.
So in conclusion, it comes down to metagame.... Thinning DOES occur, but is it worth the life? Thats up to the individual player to decide.