Thanks for the answers guys Coming from 1.5 it is quite hard to understand that Thought Scour is really that good. I mean you basically draw 1 card and put 2 cards you do not know and choose in your GY. I see the synergy but with Faithless Looting I could at least keep 2 cards instead of 1 and I can decide which cards I like to keep and which cards I discard. This is the advantage I see with Faithless Looting but I guess all it matters is Thought Scour being Instant speed and playing it at the end of the opponents turn.
Not being to choose is not as relevant as you're making it out to be. You're a Snapcaster deck, so putting an instant or sorcery in the graveyard isn't that much different than putting it into your hand. You also have access to Kolaghan's Command and Liliana the Last Hope to get back creatures. Also if you delve properly Tasigur can potentially get back stuff you want. The only real problem is milling lands you need, which is just a risk you have to live with. Also a thing you need to consider is that this is a primarily black deck, with blue as the secondary color, and red as just a splash. You usually want the first mana producing land in play to be a Watery Grave. There are going to be many games you start with a one lander. If you're running Faithless Looting over Thought Scour then that one land fetches for what? If you fetch to Loot, then you have to decide if you want to not have black for your threats and disruption, or not have blue for the Serum Visions to dig for the second land.
I feel like Delver would be a possibility if Gitaxian Probe hadn't been banned. Street Wraith being a creature instead of a instant/sorcery makes Delver too inconsistent to flip. As others have pointed out, even if Gitaxian Probe was legal and in Street Wraith's spot, Delver and Death's Shadow still wouldn't work too well together as the two decks have different play styles. Maybe you could try to squeeze in some Bolts in the removal spot for added reach if you're having problems with too little threats.
There are two types of storm players. Those who try to go all in on the combo as aggressively as they can, and those who play storm like it's chess.
This seems true for a lot of decks. I switched to this deck from Burn. Before I did I saw so many Death's Shadow opponents go too aggressive into dropping a large Death's Shadow allowing me to just burn them out. Conversely I've watched so many fellow Burn players go to fast at trying to "bolt face" in matches where they need to be the control deck. I kind of feel one of the best things we can is take advantage when we recognize our opponent (whether on Storm or anything else) is incapable of switching gears.
Thanks! Yeah it was a bad play that just happened to be the right line. I guess the point is, I really haven't found her attack/block requirement to be restricting at all. That was pretty much the only time I've had to pull all sorts of strings to use her.
She (along with Kalitas) also plays really well with Damnation
Yeah. I've only used the card a little in testing. So far my favorite move is to Fatal Push/Terminate Hazoret to get down to one card to attack into zero blockers.
Yeah I had 5 mana and tapped 4 to play Hazoret. I don't even remember how I ended up with such a janky hand, it was 1 out of a bunch of test games with a friend
I'm not sure how I feel about Boil tbh. All the discard we run helps deal with counterspells, and if I have a chance to push through a 4 mana spell while they don't have counters open, I'd rather stick a planeswalker
Hmm I'll consider trying 24, but I've been pretty happy with my current Land count. I'll do some testing this week and see how it feels. Canyon Slough has been tempting, but that also puts me up to 3 tap lands + 2 Dragonskull Summits. I'm pretty content with just one Nights Whisper (especially when running Hazoret as a threat). I used to have 2, but I replaced the 2nd one with a 2nd Torch of Defiance (for obvious reasons)
Hazoret has been fantastic! I originally put her in as an experiment but she has been nothing short of amazing. Well I do also have 2 mainboard Liliana of the Veil to keep my hand size down as well
she has won A LOT of games for me, and I can't really remember any situations where I would play her and then lose thanks to not being able to attack/block (there was one time I had to inquisition myself to discard my own 2nd inquisition to get down to 1 card, but opponents hand was empty anyways and the 5 was lethal)
And her ability (along with attacking of course) has helped me win through Leyline of Sanctity twice now
Wouldn't it had been better to Inquisition your opponent with an empty hand then pitch a card to Hazoret for the extra two damage? Or did you already tap lands to play something else earlier in the turn?
How often do you guys find yourself running out of gas? I find myself running out quite a bit. I know Kommand, Snap and Lili are all options but they are all 3 or more mana. How about Chart a Course? The card refuels and is only 2 mana. The card gels a lot better with Young Pyromancer decks, but there is a chance that this could be a 2 of to help refuel. Worst case it's a 2 mana Sleight and best case it's a 2 mana Divination. What are your thoughts about the mini Treasure Cruise?
Seems bad to me. If you're attacking with a creature you're most likely already ahead. If you're behind you would much rather cast Opt or Serum Visions or any other cheaper cantrip so you have more mana left over to cast what you draw.
What do you guys think of the build that uses Kiln Fiends, Thing in the ice and claim to fame as a way to punish the hostile GDS meta? I've only tried it locally at FNM level and some local leagues and I'd like to know what more people think about these changes.
The main reason I decided to switch over was the prominence of titanshift decks in my local meta, together with quite a lot of CoCo variants(elves, humans, value town...). I assumed that taking an agressive approach to the meta while mantaining an edge against the rest of the field with my discard and conditional counters was where I wanted to be. I think cutting the snaps was a bad idea, but I'm not sure what to take out to make them fit.
Any cricism is appreciated!
First I would suggest reformatting your list. At the very least keep your lands clumped separate from your non-lands (and creatures clumped separate as well). My eyes are tired from working in the sun so I may be reading your list wrong, but it appears to really be a different deck. It is technically in Grixis colors and runs Death's Shadow, but other than that really isn't a Grixis Death's Shadow deck. Seems more like a version of UR Kiln Fiend. Your deck seems more of an all in aggro deck. GDS is really more of a midrange deck. Two decks share a lot of cards, but really play on different axes. Maybe trying asking your question here?
- Not a single Surgical Extraction in any of the sideboards (perhaps Team Unified Construction Rules related)
Event is Team Constructed, not Team Unified though. Legacy member of a team using Surgical Extractions wouldn't exclude the Modern teammate from doing the same.
My shift back to RWg did start earlier. Even before Inspiring Vantage I had more success with RWg than I did with Naya, and the printing of the fast land just made it easier to drop to Boros splash D Rev (for me at least). I understand that some Burn players over reacted and went with the line of dropping Atarka's Command as a result of Push, but my point is that some of us leaned towards Boros anyway. The meta was getting faster and faster, and the life loss did matter. Taking less life loss and being able to run 4 Helix main was a deciding factor for many of us rather than the knee jerk hive mind reaction you suggest.
The complete shift did not really happen until after Fatal Push was printed, regardless of the fact that there were probably some people playing RWg before Inspiring Vantage was even printed. While you personally might have chosen to go to RWg after Kaladesh, you're not personally representative of the shift as a whole. The trend in general away from Naya and to RWg is a knee jerk hive mind reaction like I've suggested, regardless of whether people like yourself made well-reasoned decisions to shift to RWg before that.
Fair point on the overall shift. However very time this subject comes up though (either here or on reddit), you make it sound like there is no legitimate reason to go RWg over Naya except that RWg players are sheep following the herd. All I contend is that both have valid reasons.
Atarka's Command is a more powerful and versatile Skullcrack at worst and it's worth playing it in the maindeck. What's happened now is that people have shifted away from Nacatl due to prevalent removal and are dropping AC too because they think they're tied together. The only time I'd consider dropping it is an extreme aggro meta where 3 colors is too painful.
Some of us (like myself) didn't drop Atarka's Command because we think they're tied together. Some of us realize it is a more versatile Skullcrack, but value the less life loss from playing Boros over the versatility of playing a Skullcrack with other modes. It has less to do with Fatal Push being printed and more to do with Inspiring Vantage being printed.
If that were the case, the shift back to RWg would have primarily taken place several months before it actually did. The shift didn't really start until Fatal Push pushed Nacatl out. I can see a meta argument for it (ie. if you had blamed Death's Shadow), but I don't think it's accurate to say that Inspiring Vantage is the reason.
My shift back to RWg did start earlier. Even before Inspiring Vantage I had more success with RWg than I did with Naya, and the printing of the fast land just made it easier to drop to Boros splash D Rev (for me at least). I understand that some Burn players over reacted and went with the line of dropping Atarka's Command as a result of Push, but my point is that some of us leaned towards Boros anyway. The meta was getting faster and faster, and the life loss did matter. Taking less life loss and being able to run 4 Helix main was a deciding factor for many of us rather than the knee jerk hive mind reaction you suggest.
Atarka's Command is a more powerful and versatile Skullcrack at worst and it's worth playing it in the maindeck. What's happened now is that people have shifted away from Nacatl due to prevalent removal and are dropping AC too because they think they're tied together. The only time I'd consider dropping it is an extreme aggro meta where 3 colors is too painful.
Some of us (like myself) didn't drop Atarka's Command because we think they're tied together. Some of us realize it is a more versatile Skullcrack, but value the less life loss from playing Boros over the versatility of playing a Skullcrack with other modes. It has less to do with Fatal Push being printed and more to do with Inspiring Vantage being printed.
So, for a question i have,
can i play double Searing Blaze's on 1 target opponent creature to deal 6 damage to opponent? (landfall included)
Cast the first Searing Blaze and hold priority, then cast the second one with first still on the stack. Searing Blaze targets both player and creature. Removing the creature in response will not cause the 3 damage to player to fizzle as long as both targets were legal when Searing Blaze was cast.
Not being to choose is not as relevant as you're making it out to be. You're a Snapcaster deck, so putting an instant or sorcery in the graveyard isn't that much different than putting it into your hand. You also have access to Kolaghan's Command and Liliana the Last Hope to get back creatures. Also if you delve properly Tasigur can potentially get back stuff you want. The only real problem is milling lands you need, which is just a risk you have to live with. Also a thing you need to consider is that this is a primarily black deck, with blue as the secondary color, and red as just a splash. You usually want the first mana producing land in play to be a Watery Grave. There are going to be many games you start with a one lander. If you're running Faithless Looting over Thought Scour then that one land fetches for what? If you fetch to Loot, then you have to decide if you want to not have black for your threats and disruption, or not have blue for the Serum Visions to dig for the second land.
Not bringing them is just begging to see Dredge every round.
This seems true for a lot of decks. I switched to this deck from Burn. Before I did I saw so many Death's Shadow opponents go too aggressive into dropping a large Death's Shadow allowing me to just burn them out. Conversely I've watched so many fellow Burn players go to fast at trying to "bolt face" in matches where they need to be the control deck. I kind of feel one of the best things we can is take advantage when we recognize our opponent (whether on Storm or anything else) is incapable of switching gears.
Yeah. I've only used the card a little in testing. So far my favorite move is to Fatal Push/Terminate Hazoret to get down to one card to attack into zero blockers.
Ok. Makes sense. Nice play then!
Wouldn't it had been better to Inquisition your opponent with an empty hand then pitch a card to Hazoret for the extra two damage? Or did you already tap lands to play something else earlier in the turn?
Seems bad to me. If you're attacking with a creature you're most likely already ahead. If you're behind you would much rather cast Opt or Serum Visions or any other cheaper cantrip so you have more mana left over to cast what you draw.
First I would suggest reformatting your list. At the very least keep your lands clumped separate from your non-lands (and creatures clumped separate as well). My eyes are tired from working in the sun so I may be reading your list wrong, but it appears to really be a different deck. It is technically in Grixis colors and runs Death's Shadow, but other than that really isn't a Grixis Death's Shadow deck. Seems more like a version of UR Kiln Fiend. Your deck seems more of an all in aggro deck. GDS is really more of a midrange deck. Two decks share a lot of cards, but really play on different axes. Maybe trying asking your question here?
Event is Team Constructed, not Team Unified though. Legacy member of a team using Surgical Extractions wouldn't exclude the Modern teammate from doing the same.
Fair point on the overall shift. However very time this subject comes up though (either here or on reddit), you make it sound like there is no legitimate reason to go RWg over Naya except that RWg players are sheep following the herd. All I contend is that both have valid reasons.
Turn zero Leyline of Sanctity followed by Shadow not having the counter spell in hand when Ad Nauseum goes off?
My shift back to RWg did start earlier. Even before Inspiring Vantage I had more success with RWg than I did with Naya, and the printing of the fast land just made it easier to drop to Boros splash D Rev (for me at least). I understand that some Burn players over reacted and went with the line of dropping Atarka's Command as a result of Push, but my point is that some of us leaned towards Boros anyway. The meta was getting faster and faster, and the life loss did matter. Taking less life loss and being able to run 4 Helix main was a deciding factor for many of us rather than the knee jerk hive mind reaction you suggest.
Some of us (like myself) didn't drop Atarka's Command because we think they're tied together. Some of us realize it is a more versatile Skullcrack, but value the less life loss from playing Boros over the versatility of playing a Skullcrack with other modes. It has less to do with Fatal Push being printed and more to do with Inspiring Vantage being printed.
Cast the first Searing Blaze and hold priority, then cast the second one with first still on the stack. Searing Blaze targets both player and creature. Removing the creature in response will not cause the 3 damage to player to fizzle as long as both targets were legal when Searing Blaze was cast.