This thread is for the discussion of Kamahl, the Fallen's latest article, Mythical Monsters. Due to technical issues the thread that is normally created when an article is published didn't occur, so I have created this thread to allow you to talk about it. As always, please keep your comments on topic.
Due to unforeseen circumstances, the upcoming article by Kamahl teased at in the article description will be delayed until after the weekends. We don't have a release date yet, but unless we hit yet another spot of bad luck, it is coming.
Warleader's Helix cannot kill Blood Baron or Stormbreath Dragon, and Glare of Heresy only kills Obzedat if the controller of Obzedat is a moron, barring shenanigans.
That said, huge fan of the amount of detail Kamahl put into this article - less so of Blood Baron and Aurelia, but I can see the merits of the Baron. Aurelia just does nothing by herself and isn't needed otherwise.
Warleader's Helix cannot kill Blood Baron or Stormbreath Dragon, and Glare of Heresy only kills Obzedat if the controller of Obzedat is a moron, barring shenanigans.
That said, huge fan of the amount of detail Kamahl put into this article - less so of Blood Baron and Aurelia, but I can see the merits of the Baron. Aurelia just does nothing by herself and isn't needed otherwise.
It cannot hit those creatures, which I stated. They were lumped in to merely point out why 4 damage is relevant when you are thinking about damage based removal. The follow up sentence stated that while Helix may not hit those two, 4 toughness was a point to consider.
It's kind of a shame that this article was mostly written back when the metagame wasn't established, because right now this deck obviously isn't Tier 1. I've been piloting it for the past couple of weeks (a jankier version of it mind you) and it really suffers from the issue of flexibility. It just doesn't have the tools to beat Esper, Mono Red and BW midrange (which mains more Obzedats and Desecration Demons) all at the same time. It can beat 2 of the 3, easy. It really needs either a better catch all removal spell or another Thragtusk-esque creature that is value in all matchups.
But that all being said, it's not his fault if the deck isn't that well positioned for the metagame. It's just luck. You really have to appreciate the effort and detail put into the article. And even if it doesn't dominate the format, I still like that it's an article about competitive standard and still has things to say. We could use more of those types of articles on the front page.
As for more technical critique. I think one of the mistakes made writing this was assigning any value to matchups. I think it's worth pointing out if a matchup is overwhelmingly good or bad, but you leave yourself open to someone saying "this matchup isn't 60/40, it's more like 55/45" and people getting you on semantical stuff like that. The more important thing IMO is identifying problem cards for you against him, problem cards for him against you, and potential sideboard solutions for both players.
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
It's kind of a shame that this article was mostly written back when the metagame wasn't established, because right now this deck obviously isn't Tier 1. I've been piloting it for the past couple of weeks (a jankier version of it mind you) and it really suffers from the issue of flexibility. It just doesn't have the tools to beat Esper, Mono Red and BW midrange (which mains more Obzedats and Desecration Demons) all at the same time. It can beat 2 of the 3, easy. It really needs either a better catch all removal spell or another Thragtusk-esque creature that is value in all matchups.
But that all being said, it's not his fault if the deck isn't that well positioned for the metagame. It's just luck. You really have to appreciate the effort and detail put into the article. And even if it doesn't dominate the format, I still like that it's an article about competitive standard and still has things to say. We could use more of those types of articles on the front page.
As for more technical critique. I think one of the mistakes made writing this was assigning any value to matchups. I think it's worth pointing out if a matchup is overwhelmingly good or bad, but you leave yourself open to someone saying "this matchup isn't 60/40, it's more like 55/45" and people getting you on semantical stuff like that. The more important thing IMO is identifying problem cards for you against him, problem cards for him against you, and potential sideboard solutions for both players.
There is so much going on with this deck right now, even in the Developing thread, there is really not a clear direction the deck is taking.
We see lists packing Desecration Demons and Whips but leaving out Aurelia, Dragons and various other cards here and there.
The TCG Silver was a pretty interesting event recently for this deck and it is quite interesting how 3 lists managed to slot into the top 4 and none of them are running Desecration Demon, a card that is practically an auto include in lists these days. The lists are more similar to the one proposed in the article.
A common understanding of the deck right now is that Desecration Demon is one of the most powerful card in the deck because it can grind out aggro decks and midrange decks while generally being weaker in the control matches.
The TCG Silver event had not one single control deck in the top 8, and BWR made up 50% of the top 8 where the 3 lists in the top 4 had 0 Desecration Demons in them. It really is peculiar that BWR Midrange did so well at this event and the lists are not what we are use to seeing from States and SCG events. An entire role player is just... not included.
This article is simply out of date now, and I really did not intend for it to stay entirely relevant to the meta game, it was written to give those in the Developing thread something to think about when building their initial lists leading into the new format, not necessarily to serve as the building blocks through the entire Standard.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
That said, huge fan of the amount of detail Kamahl put into this article - less so of Blood Baron and Aurelia, but I can see the merits of the Baron. Aurelia just does nothing by herself and isn't needed otherwise.
It cannot hit those creatures, which I stated. They were lumped in to merely point out why 4 damage is relevant when you are thinking about damage based removal. The follow up sentence stated that while Helix may not hit those two, 4 toughness was a point to consider.
Glad you enjoyed the detail
Lets not go there.
It's kind of a shame that this article was mostly written back when the metagame wasn't established, because right now this deck obviously isn't Tier 1. I've been piloting it for the past couple of weeks (a jankier version of it mind you) and it really suffers from the issue of flexibility. It just doesn't have the tools to beat Esper, Mono Red and BW midrange (which mains more Obzedats and Desecration Demons) all at the same time. It can beat 2 of the 3, easy. It really needs either a better catch all removal spell or another Thragtusk-esque creature that is value in all matchups.
But that all being said, it's not his fault if the deck isn't that well positioned for the metagame. It's just luck. You really have to appreciate the effort and detail put into the article. And even if it doesn't dominate the format, I still like that it's an article about competitive standard and still has things to say. We could use more of those types of articles on the front page.
As for more technical critique. I think one of the mistakes made writing this was assigning any value to matchups. I think it's worth pointing out if a matchup is overwhelmingly good or bad, but you leave yourself open to someone saying "this matchup isn't 60/40, it's more like 55/45" and people getting you on semantical stuff like that. The more important thing IMO is identifying problem cards for you against him, problem cards for him against you, and potential sideboard solutions for both players.
Quickly! Someone fetch my horn so that I may toot it!
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
There is so much going on with this deck right now, even in the Developing thread, there is really not a clear direction the deck is taking.
We see lists packing Desecration Demons and Whips but leaving out Aurelia, Dragons and various other cards here and there.
The TCG Silver was a pretty interesting event recently for this deck and it is quite interesting how 3 lists managed to slot into the top 4 and none of them are running Desecration Demon, a card that is practically an auto include in lists these days. The lists are more similar to the one proposed in the article.
A common understanding of the deck right now is that Desecration Demon is one of the most powerful card in the deck because it can grind out aggro decks and midrange decks while generally being weaker in the control matches.
The TCG Silver event had not one single control deck in the top 8, and BWR made up 50% of the top 8 where the 3 lists in the top 4 had 0 Desecration Demons in them. It really is peculiar that BWR Midrange did so well at this event and the lists are not what we are use to seeing from States and SCG events. An entire role player is just... not included.
This article is simply out of date now, and I really did not intend for it to stay entirely relevant to the meta game, it was written to give those in the Developing thread something to think about when building their initial lists leading into the new format, not necessarily to serve as the building blocks through the entire Standard.