I'm not talking tier 1 deck necessarily, but I was thinking that replenish might see a little more play with all these new enchantment creatures in something other than Enchantress. It ensures that any auras in your graveyard can come back into play enchanting a creature, since the enchantment creatures come back with replenish.
Just wanted to let everyone know. I played Imperial Painter at #SCGBALT, and did terribly, 1-2-1, but this was due to my own failings as a pilot and not the fault of the deck. Overall I felt the deck was well positioned.
I should point out, Rakka Mar gives this deck a strong Aggro out. The issue is she is easy to answer with a single Bolt. I run her as a one of in the side.
Sorry, my question was badly phrased. The painter/grindstone combo wins by milling, and Eldrazi stop you from being able to do that. Assuming Bridge can keep them from killing you, what's Plan B? Ping to win with Jaya?
One thing about this deck, is that it has an Aggro Mode, Combo Mode, and Control Mode. The Aggro mode is the has the least focus right now, but there are times when people play stuff that is tutorable with Imperial Recruiter that is super aggressive. (Think Kargan Dragonlord, or something like that.) (Sometimes Koth of the Hammer)
You can also become very controlling by Siding in Cards like Ensnaring Bridge. (Cards like Jaya Ballard, Task Master, and Grindstone allow you to win without attacking)
How exactly does GB enable the deck when you need to cheat him into play first?
Because the strength of the deck isn't in how you get him into play. Sure getting him into play before turn 8 is ahead of schedule, but lets not delude ourselves, playing things ahead of schedule has been a part of Magic from the start, Dark Ritual. Show and Tell might be the best way, but that doesn't make it inherently broken.
Now I'm not saying GB is NOT an enabler (any card that says draw 7 is an amazing enabler) but he's not the enabler of the deck. I think this is coming down more to realizing what enables what: GB doesn't enable SnT, whereas SnT/SA enables GB.
Do you think people were paying full price for Yawgmoth's Bargain back in the old days? Do you think people were winning by waiting around till turn 6 to play it?
Based on your logic, the fast mana, and ramp are the enablers... things that let you cheat on costs can be the enabler... but Vengevine lets you cheat on costs not Survival of the Fittest... so clearly it's not always the card that cheapens the cost which is broken.
I've noticed that most people clamoring for a GB ban seem to act like 7-14 life is a trivial cost, when it flat out is not.
This misses the point, does it matter if it's a trivial cost or not when the only way you loose when you pay that cost is if you somehow don't draw what you need. AKA you win 95% of the time you pay that cost. I would suggest that the cost is trivial if when you pay the costs and activate the ability you win 95% of the time. Why does it matter if you are at 6 life (or less) if you've won?
Let's consider your example of Stingscourger. If the SnT player, in response to SS ability, draws 14 cards and finds a stop gap to him (I'm thinking Stifle), you essentially threw what amounts to at least a 2 for 1, if not much more considering how many cards it would normally take to deal the equivalent damage.
So let me get this right, them drawing 15 cards to your 1 is fair because you 2 for 1'd them?
Also It's still irrelevant that you two for oned them because the fact that they were able to deal with your "hate" means they are extremely (95% or higher) likely to win the game, because they drew 14 cards and are reloaded to go off again, and to protect there board.
Reanimation folds to GY hate.
Sneak Attack gets hit by Pithing Needle effects/removal.
SnT is the only one that is inherently difficult to hate on due to SnT hate being non universal (an O-Ring to stop Emrakul is much worse if they drop GB instead).
Just so I understand your argument here is that the problem is the hate which has historically kept Show and Tell in check is bad because of Griselbrand's instant speed card drawing ability lets them dodge it?
Yet Show and Tell is the problem card? Not the card that when coupled with Show and Tell suddenly invalidated all the hate cards which historically kept Show and Tell in check?
Also that Sneak Attack is fine because in the history of magic they have printed 2 cards (Pithing Needle, Phyrexian Revoker) which can shut it down (there are other ways too...), but Sneak Attack is easier to hate out then Show and Tell (I can think of at least 2 cards in standard which stop Show and Tell and can't be countered because they come in when your opponent plays Show and Tell)
At one point it was a rock paper scissors game and casting Show and Tell could actually lose you the game (outside of matches against other Show and Tell decks). The problem is Griselbrand trumps 99% of the ways people used to interact with Show and Tell.
But enough of this. Overall the deck isn't dominating the format... yet.
I understand where you are coming from, I just think the concept of always banning the enabler is incorrectly applied, and largely hindsight. Because in hindsight whatever they choose to ban will inherently be the "enabler."
TLDR;
Show and Tell is a symmetrical effect which is why it's been able to survive as long as it has. Grislebrand trumps 99% (I'm loath to say 100% but I can't really think of one) of the strategies which used the Symmetrical Effect to best Show and Tell, making Show and Tell Asymmetrical. This means that Grislebrand enables people to abuse Show and Tell.
It's been said before, and it apparently needs to be said again. Banning Griselbrand would be the worst idea if they wanted to hit SnT decks, since it's only a matter of time before another powerful fatty is printed and starts the problem all over again. The comparison to Survival of the Fittest is a great example: Why ban Vengevine/Ooze if sometime along the road they plan to print another big GY bomb that breaks Survival again?
And even if they did ban GB, SnT decks would simply default to the next strongest fatty (I'm thinking ulamog).
Wizards won't ever ban the fatty, they will always ban the uncontrollable (and limiting) enabler.
Sure, and I have no problem with that. When you can't draw 14 cards off of your fatty suddenly there are a dozen or more answers in the form of existing magic cards which currently don't work because your opponent just drew 14 cards and is going to trump whatever you try to do.
An easier way to explain it than reiterating what everyone else is already saying.
It is literally the same situation with Survival. They won't axe GB, they'll axe SnT.
Yes the problem is your mistaking what the enabler is here. Griselbrand is the enabler. Just because the deck is named Show and Tell doesn't mean that Show and Tell is the enabler. Show and Tell is powerful, and lets you drop fatties into play way sooner then they would come into play naturally... but lets not kid ourselves, there are outs to early fatties in every color, and having someone use Show and Tell to drop a creature in that you then can use something like Stingscourger to deal with isn't horrible at all. The issue is that you can't use your answer cards because they drew 14 in response and countered it.
You get rid of Show and Tell people will just find the next best way to cheat Griselbrand into play. Just like people will use the next best fatty.
The thing is, Griselbrand is arguably an enabler himself, he's a flying lifelink Yawgmoth's Bargain on a stick than can win the game by himself and protect himself by drawing cards. And its not like S&T is the only way to get him into play, there are other decks which abuse Griselbrand and play 0 MD S&T. I feel like the format would be better off if he was never printed and the fact that he made it through R&D is absolutely baffling, who thought printing a Yawgmoth's Bargain that allows you to regain the life you spend on it and can kill your opponent was a good idea?
That said, banning him won't fix the Sneak/Show homogenization "issue" as they'll always use the same stuff. 5 years ago they probably used different stuff; but too much insta-win fat has been printed now for them to use in-color fat or to need them for other purposes.
Well yeah, it's OK that they use the same creature. But the problem with Griselbrand in particular is when Griselbrand hits play your only out is hoping your opponents deck hates him.
One of the ways that Sneak and Show decks lose still is by going all in on Show and Tell into Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. This doesn't guarantee them a win, and there are a lot of good answers.
There are very few good answers to an in play Griselbrand.
Lets compare this to Survival since that seems to be the pastime in this threat.
Survival of the Fittest, let you both find the specific card in your deck you need and move another copy of that card to the zone you need it to be in.
Does Show and Tell let you find the cards you need? No.
Show and Tell is lousy when you have to fill your hand with uncastable cards and get virtually 2 for 1ed ever time it's countered or someone puts in the hate cards.
Does Grislebrand find you the cards you need? Yes, and allows you to turn a lousy card like Show and Tell into a draw 14, and reduces the strength of hate cards because chances are you can find an card to deal with them in the 14 you draw.
Personally, I want Show and Tell banned. I'm sick of seeing the card, and I think there's room for some more variety among the format's best combo decks without Show and Tell variants.
That said, that's a selfish opinion. I recognize this completely. I want Show and Tell to be banned, but I don't think it should be banned.
It just doesn't quite fit the criteria of a ban.
Like, I want Goblin Recruiter to be unbanned, but that doesn't mean I think it should be unbanned. Goblins just happens to be my favorite deck
Griselbrand is the problem card not show and tell. The other parts of the combo are strong but not nearly as unbeatable. Griselbrand is where the problem is...
Wow, such different opinions comparing TNN's thread here and @ the Source... think I'm going to lean to the other-site for more experienced insight ;).
Source also early reporting --->
8 Nemesis in Top4 of the French Championship.
(BUG and Bant)
AND that's with it being very hard to come by on-site!
Not to question this too much... but it's not even Mid Day Saturday in France right now (5:52 AM
Saturday, November 2, 2013 (CET) to be exact)... How could there have been a Championship that is in top 4 already?
@Slave it looks like your under the guise that an iPainter player would grind away with out their painter in play. This is only the case for certain decks (at least in my case). Personally if I don't have my whole combo in play, I wont help out dredge at all. When it comes something like Emrakul normally game 1 is a bust. Sometimes there are ways around it but most people don't main deck a Crypt. Game 2 I side out the Grindstones, and side in Ensnaring bridges and Koth. But thats just me.
In the case of dredge... keep in mind that they use Blue spells to full there dredging mostly (Unless they are manaless version) (Faithless Looting is great) so we can slow them down... Also keep in mind that post board it's really easy for us to deal with Zombie Hords with something like Ratchet Bomb... or Ensnaring Bridge. If you are running some GYH it should be good for you.
A lot of people are mistaken and think Imperial Painter is a pure combo deck... we have quite a few tricks up our sleeves.
I love the design. Not sure if it's playable in legacy though when loam exists. Sure putting it onto the battlefield is nicer than to hand, but we also have crucible of worlds, which is much better than this card ever will be unless your opponent has a land worth nabbing.
I'd expect this card to make more waves in Vintage honestly.
It also doesn't seem like it fuels a strong combo in legacy... so I'd be surprised if this sees play.
How often can this semi-removal spell live the dream, and how often does it make a bad but versatile Submerge imitation? Also, how far can we shove that Counterbalance into their library?
...And maybe, just maybe, we can really screw with their CounterTop if they don't leave a 2-cmc card on top and they tap out?
Discuss away!
Meh, I don't think White really wants this, when Swords to Plowshares deals with 90% of what you need it to, and is clearly the better Main Deck choice...
Also Submerge is good because it's free. UU Submerge (Ahem Boomerang)wouldn't see play... and I don't think WW Submerge will either.
Honestly if it cost 4 mana and needs a graveyard to work, it seems to slow and too easy to disrupt to be a good combo deck.
There are a few options for this slot.
I've seen lists from way back that had Kargan Dragonlord, and Figure of Destiny.
Someone suggested one of the "new" werewolves possibly. Instigator Gang, or Kruin Outlaw I guess.
I'm not sold but things to consider right?
One thing about this deck, is that it has an Aggro Mode, Combo Mode, and Control Mode. The Aggro mode is the has the least focus right now, but there are times when people play stuff that is tutorable with Imperial Recruiter that is super aggressive. (Think Kargan Dragonlord, or something like that.) (Sometimes Koth of the Hammer)
You can also become very controlling by Siding in Cards like Ensnaring Bridge. (Cards like Jaya Ballard, Task Master, and Grindstone allow you to win without attacking)
You can also switch modes on the fly. =P
Because the strength of the deck isn't in how you get him into play. Sure getting him into play before turn 8 is ahead of schedule, but lets not delude ourselves, playing things ahead of schedule has been a part of Magic from the start, Dark Ritual. Show and Tell might be the best way, but that doesn't make it inherently broken.
Do you think people were paying full price for Yawgmoth's Bargain back in the old days? Do you think people were winning by waiting around till turn 6 to play it?
Why didn't they ban Dark Ritual or Academy Rector or the other cards which were getting Yawgmoth's Bargain into play too early?
Based on your logic, the fast mana, and ramp are the enablers... things that let you cheat on costs can be the enabler... but Vengevine lets you cheat on costs not Survival of the Fittest... so clearly it's not always the card that cheapens the cost which is broken.
This misses the point, does it matter if it's a trivial cost or not when the only way you loose when you pay that cost is if you somehow don't draw what you need. AKA you win 95% of the time you pay that cost. I would suggest that the cost is trivial if when you pay the costs and activate the ability you win 95% of the time. Why does it matter if you are at 6 life (or less) if you've won?
So let me get this right, them drawing 15 cards to your 1 is fair because you 2 for 1'd them?
Also It's still irrelevant that you two for oned them because the fact that they were able to deal with your "hate" means they are extremely (95% or higher) likely to win the game, because they drew 14 cards and are reloaded to go off again, and to protect there board.
Just so I understand your argument here is that the problem is the hate which has historically kept Show and Tell in check is bad because of Griselbrand's instant speed card drawing ability lets them dodge it?
Yet Show and Tell is the problem card? Not the card that when coupled with Show and Tell suddenly invalidated all the hate cards which historically kept Show and Tell in check?
Also that Sneak Attack is fine because in the history of magic they have printed 2 cards (Pithing Needle, Phyrexian Revoker) which can shut it down (there are other ways too...), but Sneak Attack is easier to hate out then Show and Tell (I can think of at least 2 cards in standard which stop Show and Tell and can't be countered because they come in when your opponent plays Show and Tell)
The problem is the Instant Speed Card Draw on Griselbrand makes Show and Tell Asymmetrical.
At one point it was a rock paper scissors game and casting Show and Tell could actually lose you the game (outside of matches against other Show and Tell decks). The problem is Griselbrand trumps 99% of the ways people used to interact with Show and Tell.
Which leads me to the conclusion that Griselbrand is what is breaking Show and Tell. Not that Show and Tell is breaking Griselbrand.
Also notice that you don't have to play Show and Tell to abuse Grislebrand. (Also suggesting that the Show and Tell isn't what is making Grislebrand's effect to strong.)
But enough of this. Overall the deck isn't dominating the format... yet.
I understand where you are coming from, I just think the concept of always banning the enabler is incorrectly applied, and largely hindsight. Because in hindsight whatever they choose to ban will inherently be the "enabler."
TLDR;
Show and Tell is a symmetrical effect which is why it's been able to survive as long as it has. Grislebrand trumps 99% (I'm loath to say 100% but I can't really think of one) of the strategies which used the Symmetrical Effect to best Show and Tell, making Show and Tell Asymmetrical. This means that Grislebrand enables people to abuse Show and Tell.
Sure, and I have no problem with that. When you can't draw 14 cards off of your fatty suddenly there are a dozen or more answers in the form of existing magic cards which currently don't work because your opponent just drew 14 cards and is going to trump whatever you try to do.
Yes the problem is your mistaking what the enabler is here. Griselbrand is the enabler. Just because the deck is named Show and Tell doesn't mean that Show and Tell is the enabler. Show and Tell is powerful, and lets you drop fatties into play way sooner then they would come into play naturally... but lets not kid ourselves, there are outs to early fatties in every color, and having someone use Show and Tell to drop a creature in that you then can use something like Stingscourger to deal with isn't horrible at all. The issue is that you can't use your answer cards because they drew 14 in response and countered it.
You get rid of Show and Tell people will just find the next best way to cheat Griselbrand into play. Just like people will use the next best fatty.
Exactly my point.
Well yeah, it's OK that they use the same creature. But the problem with Griselbrand in particular is when Griselbrand hits play your only out is hoping your opponents deck hates him.
One of the ways that Sneak and Show decks lose still is by going all in on Show and Tell into Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. This doesn't guarantee them a win, and there are a lot of good answers.
There are very few good answers to an in play Griselbrand.
Lets compare this to Survival since that seems to be the pastime in this threat.
Survival of the Fittest, let you both find the specific card in your deck you need and move another copy of that card to the zone you need it to be in.
Does Show and Tell let you find the cards you need? No.
Show and Tell is lousy when you have to fill your hand with uncastable cards and get virtually 2 for 1ed ever time it's countered or someone puts in the hate cards.
Does Grislebrand find you the cards you need? Yes, and allows you to turn a lousy card like Show and Tell into a draw 14, and reduces the strength of hate cards because chances are you can find an card to deal with them in the 14 you draw.
Griselbrand is the problem card not show and tell. The other parts of the combo are strong but not nearly as unbeatable. Griselbrand is where the problem is...
It's interesting that you mentioned that, because someone running the U/R Painter took 12th at SCG LA.
Dice_Bag is correct however that Imperial Painter isn't really the same deck.
Sure and if you don't overcomit suddenly they wrath but are at a lower life total.... seems ok for you on the rebound.
Not to question this too much... but it's not even Mid Day Saturday in France right now (5:52 AM
Saturday, November 2, 2013 (CET) to be exact)... How could there have been a Championship that is in top 4 already?
Edit: Specifically talking about the Sneak and Show.
Yeah some people try to 3 card combo it by playing Surgical Extraction or Tormod's Crypt but honestly I think the best way to win is get an Hand with Ensnaring Bridge and get it into play. Side as many Blasts as you can, to counter early Show and Tell's, drop Ensnaring Bridge and win via Jaya Ballard, Task Mage or Koth of the Hammer.
In the case of dredge... keep in mind that they use Blue spells to full there dredging mostly (Unless they are manaless version) (Faithless Looting is great) so we can slow them down... Also keep in mind that post board it's really easy for us to deal with Zombie Hords with something like Ratchet Bomb... or Ensnaring Bridge. If you are running some GYH it should be good for you.
A lot of people are mistaken and think Imperial Painter is a pure combo deck... we have quite a few tricks up our sleeves.
I'd expect this card to make more waves in Vintage honestly.
It also doesn't seem like it fuels a strong combo in legacy... so I'd be surprised if this sees play.
Meh, I don't think White really wants this, when Swords to Plowshares deals with 90% of what you need it to, and is clearly the better Main Deck choice...
Also Submerge is good because it's free. UU Submerge (Ahem Boomerang)wouldn't see play... and I don't think WW Submerge will either.
I don't know. It's worth watching.
Yeah that seems way better to me too.