This is the closing of an important chapter in the history of Magic: the Gathering.
So much has happened right here on these forums. The website has changed so much over the years, constantly adapting to the interests of its users, old and new. It helped shape and reinforce what it means to play and love Magic for thousands of people.
I've been here just two months short of seven years. Salvation has really shaped who I am as a player. I started in the Legacy forums talking about Stax, Burn and Reanimator, but thanks to the open nature of these forums and its users I slowly transformed into a Pauper and Commander player. If I look back at my first posts, I'm a completely different person.
Thank you.
Here's to the end of something great and the beginning of something new and interesting, created by the backbone of MtgSalvation.
- Upkeep
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years, 8 months, and 5 days
Last active Fri, Jun, 3 2022 07:55:40
- 6 Followers
- 2,872 Total Posts
- 144 Thanks
-
May 14, 2014Upkeep posted a message on Primer constructionAnything new over here? How's it coming?Posted in: -spooky- Blog
-
Feb 4, 2014Upkeep posted a message on Launch Giveaway!Good change! Looks a lot more stylish. Although it feels kinda like Facebook and Twitter at the same time. Why do all community websites just imitate the big social media guys?Posted in: Announcements
My favorite card is Deftblade Elite. Although I'm not generally a White player, this card is just so sweet; he has won me games. Whether he's killing a provoked creature every turn with lots of pump like Honor the Pure or Catapult Squad, or he's getting a dangerous blocker out of the way so my other creatures can get through (and lives to do it again!),he gets the job done! Just an all-round good card. and a common 1-drop, too! -
Jan 15, 2014Upkeep posted a message on Primer constructionI really like your introduction! Very concise and explains where the archetype comes from.Posted in: -spooky- Blog
Is Cadaverous Knight really a core creature? It barely looks playable, to me anyways.
Maybe comment on each creature and specify in what style it belongs to (control or aggro), so that we can get a better idea of where they belong. You can also include ''shells'' of decks, in other words cards that must be run in order to make the deck function.
A notable exclusion from your otherwise rather full list is Nameless Inversion. This card is a complete beast in this deck, as it's recurable removal, with cards like Ghoulcaller's Chant and Ghoul Raiser.
Bonesplitter probably deserves a mention, as do other pump spells like Unholy Strength (there are many variants available).
I think Top 8 and Video sections are wishful thinking, as there are no sanctioned paper pauper tournaments. If you can get your hands on some MTGO videos playing Zombies, that might be a useful tool.
I suggest a section on Peasant (five uncommons max). It doesn't require a much bigger metagaming knowledge, just another card search. There are lots of uncommon candidates for Zombies.
A brief (or very detailed) matchup breakdown and analysis would be very appreciated. I like to test against many of the top decks in Pauper to see where mine stands, but I understand it's not possible for everyone, considering play-mates and time.
Overall, I think you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for playable cards, and cutting some of the more "fringe" ones is probably a good idea (you can also use the rating system to determine the value of each card to the deck). But it's a really good start! I look forward to seeing the rest! - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Giant Spiders are kinda bleh indeed. I included them because I wanted to fit a four drop to complete the mana curve. Deadly Recluse comes in conflict with other cards that are better in the 2-drop slot. I didn't appreciate Deadly Recluse because although he could kill any creature, he couldn't survive to block again, which was kind of against the plan of building a wall of spiders ftw. I also already had o-rings which do a mighty good job of getting Crushers.
I think a deathtouch creature would be sweet, so how about a test? Can we try Kessig Recluse? He fills the 4-drop slot, has deathtouch and can survive to block multiple times, not to mention he's a better attacking force.
I would not play Reclaim, as it's card disadvantage, and it's really not necessary to recur fatties because there are plenty of them. Besides, cycling doesn't happen that often anyways.
The deck is actually doing fairly well in testing! What's pretty cool is that you have early drops to fend off faster decks, and then you play cards that are just plain bigger than everyone else's because they're more expensive. Attacking to win has also not been a problem. Again, Serra's Blessing would be a good uncommon to use in the deck, if you want to play Peasant.
the Lotus Petals are pretty important, unfortunately. They are not only a mana source, but a 0 cost artifact that can be sacrificed.
I think what's important to note is that I'm using 24 lands. This gives me a much higher chance to hit all of my lands drops to turn 4-5, which is exactly what this deck needs. This results in making the deck being able to play its' cards just like a deck with a smaller curve will (except cards with higher mana costs are stronger! :))
Here's what the deck looks like with all our work together:
4 Fog
2 Undergrowth
4 Respite
4 Moment's Peace
4 Vision Skeins
4 Words of Wisdom
3 Compulsive Research
3 Deep Analysis
4 Brainstorm
4Jace's Erasure
4 Shriekhorn
Lands (20)
8 Forest
10 Island
1 Tranquil Thicket
1 Lonely Sandbar
I might try splitting 2/2 with Shriekhorn and Thought Scour.
Wouldn't Deviant Glee be just about better than Bonesplitter here? Sure if the creature's destroyed, it sucks, but it gives toughness and an ability.
Sewn-Eye Drake must be replaced, although I'm not a fan of the bombers either. Does it have to have flying?
4 Akki Blizzard-Herder
4 Phyrexian Walker
3 Krark-Clan Shaman
4 Kjeldoran Dead
2 Atog
4 Ichor Wellspring
4 Lotus Petal
Sorceries (15)
4 Crack the Earth
4 Raze
4 Tremble
3 Innocent Blood
4 Great Furnace
4 Vault of Whispers
9 Mountain
3 Swamp
I've dreamed of finding a home for Kjeldoran Dead. He really kicks some serious ass in this deck. The deck runs on sacrificing your stuff, obviously. I have 10 cards that sacrifice artifacts, 11 to sacrifice creatures, and 16 ways to sacrifice (and destroy) lands. Phyrexian Walker is an all-star in the deck, because he is both an artifact and a creature, he costs 0, and he blocks well. The deck needs phyrexian walker in it, I've discovered. 20 lands is a good number as well, I was correct in thinking that permanent sources of mana trump fast mana like Simian Spirit Guide. Innocent Blood is much needed removal that works well with Akki Blizzard-Herder.
I took out the Kuldotha Rebirth, because it was interfering with Krark-Clan Shaman (even if it was excellent with Kjeldoran Dead). I chose to keep the shaman rather than Rebirth, but that might be a mistake. I just really like being able to clear the board.
haha, I wasn't sure if that was what you meant, even if I sort of figured, but I thought I'd just tease you a bit anyways lol Thanks for being so polite, it's fun to debate with you. All my respect goes out to you, and your knowledge of Burn.
That's very true. There isn't another deck in Legacy where Rakdos Charm could really have fit. It's a powerful Sideboard card for sure, but it comes at a greater price than we could imagine. There aren't many people who are ready to invest in using Black in Legacy.
I just want to say thank you so much to all of you! I've actually learned so much about Burn (how to daze-proof my plays, how many fetches to run, lands to play, etc.) in just the past few days from you masters.
If you have any questions with numbers, ask me, it'd be a pleasure for me to answer. I'm not bad for a music major!
4 Juvenile Gloomwidow
4 Sporecap Spider
3 Giant Spider
4 Sentinel Spider
3 Pale Recluse
2 Jungle Weaver
4 Wild Growth
3 Oblivion Ring
4 Rancor
Sorceries (4)
4 Travel Preparations
14 Forest
8 Plains
2 Terramorphic Expanse
The deck has a really solid curve. You can ramp first turn with Wild Growth, then follow up with Sporecap Spider or Juvenile Gloomwidow and a Rancor. Sentinel Spider is a beast. The tops off at 7 mana with Jungle Weaver.
A pretty strong uncommon for this deck would be Serra's Blessing.
I think I understand your point. I didn't splash Black to purposefully avoid Wasteland, that would be silly The deck does not really rely on black mana, I think that that's a bit of an overstatement. Within my testing, I used Black mana in 56% of the games I played (I only had an uncastable Bump in 5 out of 125 recorded games).
I completely agree with this. Unfortunately, quantifying decisions is pretty much impossible, as far as I know. Not even a Monte Carlo Simulation can play games for you.
For example, in your situation, I would have drawn the Bump on my second turn. This means that I still would have had a fetchland in my hand, ready to get black mana. I would have been confronted with a decision: Fetch a Mountain and have a dead card, or fetch a Badlands and risk it being destroyed next turn? This decision would be made with regards to what signals my opponent is giving, and what information I have about his deck/hand. I can tell what they are playing usually by what their first turn was, and Goblin Guide showed me the card they just drew. If I feel it's safe to get Badlands, then I would play it, and if it is destroyed, well then I have a lot of fodder for Grim Lavamancer, who will be able to deal at least 4 damage by itself, killing creatures to make way for goblin guides or straight to the face. This would result in a likely 5th turn kill (earlier if my opponent didn't have Wasteland).
after turn 2, if I drew 7 in the opening, I would have 52 cards left in my library (Y), and 8 cards are revealed, 2 of which were non-basic (X=10). What is the probability that my next card will be a non-basic land? The answer is 19%. Those aren't bad odds, imo. if X=12, it would be 23%.
I think it needs both black mana and a way around Wasteland. I gave probabilities, percentages. you answered with a specific example, which is fine. Probabilities aren't everything. We need to optimize the deck beyond what probability can. However, it is a fantastic tool to be able to know to what degree the deck can perform mathematically. This should not be just set aside in favor of specific examples, like it just was! I hope you agree with me on that!
Thank you, Nantuko!
That's a very interesting explanation, thank you! I never saw FoD that way before. That end of turn stuff is pretty sneaky
Ahem
I don't need to spend a few hours on data farming to tell you what the difference might be. Let's do some math!
Okay, let's see what the hypothesis is. I think we all agree that more fetches are best, so I'm going to bump those to 10. One person thinks that running 4 Badlands is ideal, because it allows you to recover from Wasteland more easily. The other person states that running 2 would be ideal, because it avoids wasteland by using non-basics only when necessary.
If I take into account that a fetchland can be either a basic or non-basic land, I can safely assume that in a deck with 20 lands (I will be bumping up to 20 in my deck), I have both 17 basic lands and 13 non-basic lands, or 15 basic lands and 15 non-basic lands, depending on the number of Badlands being run in both scenarios.
So, my deck has 60 cards (Y), I draw 7 cards in my opening hand plus 3 more for an average kill in 4 turns, so 10 cards (Z). Now for the fist experiment, I'll try with the 17/13 mix (X). So with 17 non-basics in my deck, what's the probability that I don't draw one within the first 4 turns of the game (N=0)?
Hypergeometric Formula!
The answer is 2.5% chance of not drawing one or more non-basic land in my opening hand, which means there's a 97.5% chance of getting a non-basic land (badlands) in the first 4 turns. The chance of drawing 3 in 4 turns: 58.6%.
But how many basics will I draw in 4 turns, if I use my fetches for basics? (X= 13)
The answer is 6.9% chance of not drawing a basic land in my first 4 turns, so 93.1% that I will. the chance of drawing 2 in 4 turns (the the third being possibly used to fetch a non-basic in our scenario) is 69.6%. If we want all 3 to be basic, that number falls to 37.1%.
Okay, now let's see how the 15/15 blend stacks up. I won't need to conduct 2 experiments here, because the number of successes in the population (X) is 15 in both cases.
With 15 non-basics in my deck, the chance that I won't draw one in my first 4 turns is 4.2%, so I have a 95.8% chance of getting one or more in those turns. If I want 3 non-basic lands in my first 4 turns, the chance is 48.1%. If we want to draw 2 basic lands followed by the option of a non-basic, the percentage is 78.1%. These percentages are equivalent for the basic lands.
These numbers aren't very significant in their difference, if you ask me. Both will yield excellent results, thanks to the 10 fetch lands. However, The slight edge goes to the version running 2 Badlands, because it is less than 2% less likely of drawing a non-basic and and more than 2% more likely to draw a basic. This is insignificant, but where the numbers matter is in drawing 2 basics and leaving the possibility for a non-basic, which is 69.9% for the version with 4 Badlands, while the other has 78.1%. This 8.2% difference might be enough to allow a player to avoid Wasteland and still have black mana open on the killing turn.
But it isn't just about your deck behaving the way it should, it's also about the likelihood that your opponent has Wasteland in their hand. This question is both mathematically simpler to solve as it is more difficult to get actual raw date to work with (I don't know where I can get access to data pertaining to Wasteland use in high-level tournaments. For me to analyse the use of the card in deck within a certain time span in tournaments would take way too much time).
Now, what is the likelihood that in the first game, the opponent will draw a Wasteland to match Badlands and possibly screw my deck? Well, the chance that he/she will draw one in the opening 7 is 39.95%, if Wasteland is being run as a 4-of. The probability of drawing one by the fourth turn is 52.3% So, half the time, your opponent will have a Wasteland by turn 4. If you take into account human error (ex: the wasteland was tapped for mana) and the surprise factor of having a splash and only showing it when it matters (therefore still being able to add mana at least once before it's destroyed), these odds improve somewhat.