2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on [Primer] Monkey Grow (RUG/Temur Delver)
    with mongoose in the deck, maybe gnarlwood dryad can fit in to
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on The Rock
    my experience regarding damnation mathces yours, its not very effective against spirits, they have wanderer, thalia, selfless, queller and also, vial, company and flash threats

    maybe disfigure is more usefull?
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from TomCourtenay »
    Can someone provide an thorough analysis of the benefits of Skewer the Critics and Light up the Stage ? I've been around since 2014-ish with Mardu Burn, then Boros Burn (splashing green for Destructive Revelry in the sideboard). I feel what we've seen of Burn so far was very strong. At first, the new cards seem shaky and could have some upsides, but provide some downsides too (which make me reluctant to them). Thoughts guys?

    Cheers !

    In my testing with Skewer the Critics, I was able to cast it for R about 80% of the time. It's very easy for us to enable Spectacle, and that makes it another Lightning Bolt. I think it's an automatic 4-of in Burn now. Rift Bolt as a Spectacle enabler is a good sequence to play into if you can. Don't make the mistake of trying to get a Prowess trigger off of it. If you swing with Swift and connect, just fire it off so you don't get stuck with it.

    I do not think that Light Up the Stage is good enough, and I think it's just the next draw card in a line of draw cards that Burn players pick up and drop in their quest to solve the "running out of gas" problem. I think that the most likely outcome with that card is a bad one. A deck is about 1/6 creatures, about 1/2 spells, and about 1/3 lands. If all creatures are live draws, then 2/3 of the deck is live. If they aren't, then 1/2 of the deck is live. The possible outcomes are:

    Land-Land (probability 1/9): If I need a spell, I never consider this a good outcome and I consider it a waste of mana. If I'm 1 spell from winning, then I would have already had that spell in hand if I didn't put LUtS in my deck.

    Land-Spell (probability 1/3): This amounts to a tax of R on your burn spell and you got a land to go along with it. I doubt the land is likely to be relevant, so I think this outcome is just worse than playing a burn spell.

    Land-Creature (probability 1/9): If you cast LUtS late, this is likely very bad. If you draw an Eidolon late, you probably don't want it. If you draw Guide or Swift, it's probably irrelevant because they're outclassed and are just blockers.

    Creature-Creature (probability 1/36): Probably not what you're after. Maybe 2 hasters is ok, but you need an empty board for it.

    Creature-Spell (probability 1/6): If the creature isn't relevant, this is the same as an R tax.

    Spell-Spell (probability 1/4): This is obviously good, except when you draw Rift Bolts or things that get trapped in exile due to lack of mana.

    If creatures are always live draws, it's 1/9 dead-dead, 4/9 live-dead, and 4/9 live-live and that implies that 55% of the time is either dead or a tax of R on the burn spell you draw and only 45% of the time is a "good outcome". If creatures are always dead, it's 1/4 dead-dead, 1/2 live-dead, and 1/4 live-live and you're looking at 75% bad outcomes and 25% good outcomes. I think this suggests that it's not worth playing.

    Imagine you need it to bail you out of a bad late game situation. If that situation is that you are light on lands, I'd question both how you're enabling Spectacle without enough lands in play and how likely it is that you're even going to win if you draw the lands now. Creatures probably are either dead or not connecting anymore later in the game, so it relies on Rift Bolt or having 2 lands in play. If you're flooding and need spells, there's only a 25% chance of double spell and I'd also question whether it's likely that double spell gets you there.

    I've seen people suggest that land-land is good because "it moves them off the top". If you play LUtS and move 2 lands off the top, you've gained a slightly higher probability of drawing a spell on your next draw step because you've changed the denominator. In this sense, LUtS is worth some fraction of a spell here. Had you played a burn spell instead, that burn spell would have been worth 100% of a burn spell. I don't consider moving 2 lands off the top a uniformly positive outcome.

    In addition to all of this, it's a bad top deck when you can't Spectacle. I don't think it's worth playing in Burn.

    thank you for the well written and well thougt post, its very helpfull!

    i agree with almost everything, but i think that the case of luts being bad and being R tax are different and should not be grouped together

    since most likely we will be playing skullcrack or something alike over luts, then the R tax its just same value as the replacement

    worse than a skullcrack, about 30%
    land + land
    land + creature x2
    creature + creature

    equal than a skullcrack, about 30%
    spell + land x2

    better than a skullcrack, about 40%
    creaute + spell x2
    spell + spell

    so if you can count on spell + land being same value as replacement, then i think luts its worth it

    i think thats the case for rakdos builds with bump in the night and 1-2 shard volleys, so they just have 4 rift and 2-3 blaze as being worse spell + land outcomes

    but i would not play luts in a boros build with 8-12 2cmc spells
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Abzan
    this week i made 5-2 to a top16 finish with the exact same list that i've won with last week

    lost against humans, my oponent had a very good game 1 draw and i flooded horribly game 3

    the other round lost was against tron, i simply couldnt put pressure + disruption. Trophy and field bought me time but i didnt have the creatures to pressure and use that time

    won agaisnt 2x blue moon and uw control, trophy helps a lo in this matchups, you often needed a few conditional removal for planeswlkers, lands, enchantments, etc that ended up dead in hand if you didnt draw the right one

    the other wins where against burn, thanks to a less painfull manabase, and titanshift thanks to having bigger creatures than jund
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on Abzan
    played this list today in a 6 round + top8 event and ended up drawing the final

    Played against jund, amulet titan, dredge, merfolks, spirits and ID the last round with another spirits player to a 5-0-1 record

    in the top 8 i faced spirits (same guy from round 5), hardened scales, and ID with spirits (same guy from round 6)

    against the creature decks i missed lightning bolt, kolaghan command and the sideboard options that red has like grim lavamancer, etc

    the bg removal is very good at killing things but its bad without a target, unlike the red options mentioned above

    realy liked the creature package, every single one of them can be huge and has added utility. that helped a bit at mitigating the lack of 1 cmc removal against the creature decks. Big creatures are good at blocking and threaten a lethal counterattack next turn, unlike confidant and bloodbraid, that sometimes sit without good attacks or blocks

    tracker and goyf are easily the best cards in the deck

    trophy is great but not exciting, i dont see myself going below 3 but the drawback its very real and very punishing

    i would apreciate some feedback against decks like humans/spirits and U control decks, i dont like the options available in bg

    next i would like to try a jund version but just for bolt, kolaghan and sideboard, i think that will help with the issue above

    maybe something like
    -2 push
    -2 brutality
    -1 trophy
    -1 lotv
    +4 bolt
    +2 kolaghan

    and sideboard grim lavamancer plus some bomb like hazoreth, pia+kiran or bloodbraind for the control and midragne matchups
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on 8Rack

    But wouldn't you argue that Mutavault at the very least is one of your win-conditions? Mutavault's versatility is so strong for us against several of these meta decks. Trading a Champion for a Mutavault, setting a blocker for Lilli, Beat down? I can see why you'd drop to 3 Urborg as it can at times be cloggy, but I really believe 4 Mutavaults are very necessary.

    i dont know, not trying to convince anyone, i just dont like to many variance in the manabase. maybe its worth to play the 4th mutavault in the blackmail/3rd charm slot
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on 8Rack

    Excellent run with the deck. The deck itself looks pretty stock outside Infernal Tutor. I can see your argument to dropping down to 2 Thoughtseize, my question is why not replace the 3rd Thoughtseize with 1 Blackmail instead of the 3rd Funeral Charm? I also can see your concern with the greediness of 4 Mutavaults/4 Urborg, but don't you think that Mutavaults are very important and extra Urborgs can be pitched if need be?


    didnt think of blackmail, i will have to try it

    3/3 instead of 4/4 its to avoid drawing multiples early, when you have only seen 1/6 of the deck and might be low on lands, maybe its easier to run 4/4 with 24 lands
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on 8Rack
    11-3 at gp madrid with 8rack! good for 11th place, it was teams but my record was also 11-3

    played against:
    5 storm
    2 titanshift
    2 ur breach
    2 humans
    1 affinity
    1 nauseam
    1 sultai white shadow

    so basicaly good pairings overall and got rewarded for ignoring dredge and tron

    the losses where against storm, nauseam and ur breach, they are favourable but those where the rounds where i took more mulligans, missed landrops or couldnt cast spells because of mutavault

    overall im happy with the list, thoughtseize is very good turns 1-2 but later in the game you cant afford the 2 life in a race or to waste mana and not making him discard a card because the 1 or 2 cards he has in hand are lands

    i think 4 muta + 4 urborg its to greedy and 24 lands are to many

    infernal tutor as a one of was quite good, helps a lot in topdeck mode and its fine without hellbent

    4 skeins and 4 reckoning might be 1 to many because sometimes you just want 2 or 3, but the 4th copy its gold when you need to see one of them in order to win the game (white leyline, humans, etc)

    i liked the list but i could see myself cutting the 3rd brutality for a packrat or something
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Dredgevine
    Quote from pizzap »
    I am toying a bit now with Hollow One. I like the broken feel of casting it t1 (after Looting and cycling the Wraith). This is a WIP. I guess I should swap a Mountain for a Forest, this was simply my old mana base. In the Tournament Practise it was good, but that doesn't say so much. I will take it to a League at some point.

    i like the birds, i played a similar version without shadow/varolz and often i wanted 3 mana turn 2 in order to cast looting into 2 creatures to reanimate vengevine

    also neonate is very weak in this deck
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Jund
    BBE > K-Command > Goyf + kill a dude = Not going to happen.

    how is that better than snapcaster?
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on Jund
    what about just playing "normal" jund with 22 lands and a lower curve?
    no 4 drops
    4 lili and some other 3 mana cards like pulse or kolaghan
    rest as usual
    with claim//fame of course
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on 8Rack
    Good question. For me it depends on if you're playing Smallpox which can be a great card btw, just remember to take the draw if you think you can afford it. So if you're not playing Smallpox go for 22 or so lands and def 4 Thoughtseize (always go 4 ravens crime) but if you're playing 4 Smallpox then you can afford to cut a Thoughtseize because on the draw you need more slots for removal. Also if you're going the Pox rout play four, otherwise how would you know if you want to play or draw?

    Hope this helps

    totaly agree

    also thoughtseize on the draw its less good, for the same reason removal its a bit better
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Dredgevine
    ive been playing with this list

    4 looting
    4 neonate
    4 lightning axe
    4 haunted dead
    4 lotleth troll
    4 hollow one
    4 gravecrawler
    4 bloodghast
    4 amalgam
    4 vengevine

    4 bloodstained mire
    4 wooded foothills
    1 arid mesa
    2 mountain
    1 swamp
    2 stomping ground
    1 verdant catacombs
    1 blood crypt
    4 blackcleave cliffs

    2 thoughtsize
    2 abrupt decay
    2 collective brutality
    2 darkblast
    2 ancient grudge
    1 golgari brownscale
    1 gnaw to the bone
    3 molten rain

    made a couple of 3-2s and 4-1s, the main feels veeery explosive, but still needs changes, without dredge cards neonates are quite poor

    things i noticed
    -discard one effects are a bit lacking, i want to be discarding 2 cards at least, lightning axe gets the pass
    -i want 3 mana turn 2 to play looting into multiple creatures to reanimate vengevine
    -hollow one its great in combination with looting/troll, its 1 mana 4/4
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Jund
    i like where you are going with this traverse version, i think i like it more with a few less creatures and a few more removal
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on 8Rack
    Quote from Arkmer »
    but often a hellbent opponent just plays their top deck because they know it'll be discarded otherwise.

    they might choose not to play that card and make you choose between ghast/crime if you draw land
    Posted in: Control
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.