Oooh, I hadn't even considered Magebane Armor. I'll have to check that out! I'm glad to find someone who uses the Chasm, just to justify my own love for the card.
I've been tooling around with Jaya ever since I started playing commander, but I only made a deck with her in a serious manner recently; I was wondering if anyone had tried Glacial Chasm? It's a pet of mine simply because of the art on the Realms print, but I can see it being pretty good for setting up an alpha strike with Repercussion and similar.
Wave has tested excellently; it's sometimes been played for 0 to sac my board and kill outright. Other times it really forces a tough choice, which is perfect. I find that bloodline Keeper works better; I have 5 vamps pretty much always, and he gives me a decent long game backup plan.
I've tested the Messengers in place of the Bad Moons, and results have been encouraging. It still needs work, but this bad boy can do some serious damage
I can cut the Moons for Messengers, should I take the BLoodline Keepers out as well? I like having that sort of redundancy in an aggro backup plan, but disruption feels like it could be better.
I've been kicking this deck idea around in my head and at my LGS ever since I fell in love with Blood Artist after playing Zombies in Standard. It's build around the great synergy between Bloodgast, Blood Artist, and Kalastria Highborn, and with redundant plans such as fast black aggro and Killing Wave as a finisher. I'l post the decklist as it stands now, and some other card ideas I have been throwing around. I would love to hear everyone's opinions about the deck, and whether they think it could be viable.
I had a bit of a laugh at "less that 4 of stuff", and less than 12 fetches. One of the tenets of the Burn deck is that your cards are fairly interchangeable, and that you are constantly in a race, especially against other aggro decks. Running fetches, which thin your deck only slightly, and hurt you in the process, are deemed unnecessary by most Burn players. Legacy Burn is a burn deck, and plays hasty creatures analogous to burn. It's not a combo, because it doesn't have a set strategy or hand that wins the game. You just ensure that your spells deal at least 3 damage to the opponent, and kill them from there.
EDIT : although, I have seen a type of deck calling themselves burn, that is UR, and runs Brainstorms and probes, and no creatures. Not really my thing, but it works sometimes.
I'm considering mono-black aggro as a rogue strategy, especially given the recent excellent 1-drops out of Innistrad, and ESPECIALLY given my love for Phyrexian Obliterator. Just a sample decklist, but it could look something along these lines:
Once I find a card that is more powerfull than another card that fullfills roughly the same function in my deck, I want to replace the less powerfull card with the more powerfull one. And if I have to wait a couple of months to save up for that card, I do that.
That's the issue; proxying removes the "several months" barrier from the opportunity cost of trying out new cards. I personally see nothing wrong with that. It might lead to power level creep in your playgroup, but that can be dealth with outside the game via personal banlists and the like.
I agree with Mewens on this one. It's a collectible card game, yes. The individual cards with which you make your deck cost money, in the real world. But one of the best things about Magic, is that it's a mathmatical game. There is a reason that so many pros play both poker and Magic; it's abstract during play.
I see it akin to the gay marriage debate (not to open a can of worms here, but it's a good analogy) wherein one side argues that proxies aren't part of the traditional game, and that those who cannot afford them should do without, while those who support proxying maintain that we have every right to play with the cards we would like to. It does not devalue your deck when I make mine more interesting by proxying a card that I did not previously have access to.
And to those who say that proxying staples makes the game less enjoyable; we are not all obligated to live up to your individual standards of fun. Perhaps I would enjoy having the consistency of a Top in every deck, while I only own one. Who are you to say "I wouldn't want to do that, you're better off challenging yourself."? It's very much patronizing.
I proxy plenty of cards, using art from the internet and photoshop templates. It's fun, I can get my hands on expensive or hard to find cards, and I see no problem with it. Neither does my playgroup, although I would ask before entering a new one. As long as they are legible, I wouldn't have a problem with opponents proxying either. The way I see it, having to spend a few hundred dollars on a few pieces of cardboard makes the game less fun for those who don't have that kind of income.
4 Blood Artist
4 Bloodghast
4 Bloodthrone Vampire
4 Vampire Lacerators
4 Bad Moon
4 Bloodline Keeper
4 Go for the Throat
3 Smother
3 Killing Wave
22 Swamp
I'm wanting to slot in Geralf's Messengers and possibly Thoughtseizes, but I can't decide what to cut for them.
EDIT : although, I have seen a type of deck calling themselves burn, that is UR, and runs Brainstorms and probes, and no creatures. Not really my thing, but it works sometimes.
It is RG, recheck the picture and look at the frame.
4 Gravecrawler
4 Bloodghast
3 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Vampire Nighthawk
4 Phyrexian Obliterator
3 Massacre Wurm
3 Bad Moon
3 Go for the Throat
3 Victim of Night (Or whatever)
3 Thoughtsieze
22 Swamp
I know it's hardly competitive, but as a rogue deck, could it stand a chance?
That's the issue; proxying removes the "several months" barrier from the opportunity cost of trying out new cards. I personally see nothing wrong with that. It might lead to power level creep in your playgroup, but that can be dealth with outside the game via personal banlists and the like.
I see it akin to the gay marriage debate (not to open a can of worms here, but it's a good analogy) wherein one side argues that proxies aren't part of the traditional game, and that those who cannot afford them should do without, while those who support proxying maintain that we have every right to play with the cards we would like to. It does not devalue your deck when I make mine more interesting by proxying a card that I did not previously have access to.
And to those who say that proxying staples makes the game less enjoyable; we are not all obligated to live up to your individual standards of fun. Perhaps I would enjoy having the consistency of a Top in every deck, while I only own one. Who are you to say "I wouldn't want to do that, you're better off challenging yourself."? It's very much patronizing.