So is Leaf-Crowned Elder; as said I think the possibility to play 2+ shamans on turn 4/5 is a lot better than dealing 2+ to a creature that may not even be there or may not die even if it is.
Having to tap both him and ALL your tokens is a big hit that will leave you without blockers unless you want to block with your shamans and if you don't tap them why did you play the card at all?
Consider this:
Zoo will run you over by the turn you have the master active and even if you're still alive you can only target one creature out of the 3/4 they will have in play by then.
Infect Shoal has already won twice by turn 5
Combo is not best known to have creatures, and when they have it's either Terastodon, Emrakul, 4x Hellkite or 3x Hellkite + 1x the other dragon I forgot the name of.
Since those are among the biggest threats of this deck I don't really see what this card will do for the deck so, since I don't have one, I'm not interested to make the purchase.
That said, I may be wrong and I will be more than willing to admit it and give the right credit for if proven to be.
The shaman deck peaked my interest too, until i realized that modern is a combo format and shamans are not fast enough and have no way to stop any combos.
This deck cant beat - Splinter twin, pyromancers ascencion, shoal infect.
It has a maybe 50% matchup vs 12post, but most likely much worse vs the red green post decks that run removal and through the breach.
So what can it beat?
Zoo sometimes, rogue decks sometimes.
Why play this deck over a deck that can win? Because this deck is actually fun!
I swear on everything I post all my events for the weekend when I say as much.
I do not always open amazing bombs but I do manage to always keep my rating in an acceptable range ( my personal gauge for how well I am doing ).
I guess I am an 'exceptional lucksack' because I am not hiding 'bad drafts', and when I say I won X in a row, I am not lying. I actually try to showcase the rating to 'prove' they are in succession, at least after I start a streak.
I don't want to come across as defensive, but it is a little bit offputting for you to suggest I am not posting everything when I say as much.
Also, being compared to a known cheater is a bit questionable as well :/
All in all thanks for taking enough of an interest to post man. I *do* appreciate it.
Very interested to hear the results of your testing and if you take her into daily queues. This deck has definitely piqued my interest. I do suspect you are cold to Splinter Twin / Shoal Infect with only 4 Bolts as your outs.
My comments weren't intended to be entirely negative. Nick Eisel was a good writer and a fun read, and was well regarded until he was accused of cheating at an event. The problem with highlighting drafts in which you open bombs is that it really doesn't teach us anything, and can be irritating to the rest of us mortals who have to scrape by with more mundane cards, particularly if there is a sense that opening bombs is being confused with skill. I suspect that you draft often enough that it would be possible to highlight drafts that were more challenging based on the picks provided. Either that or you are an exceptional lucksack.
All human beings "put on a show" when it comes to the face they present to society. This is particularly true for writers, who have the opportunity to choose all of their words with care. So it is rather weak to argue that you can't help yourself in this regard. However, I don't think I'd characterize your writing as "abrasive." Your writing is fairly clean and humorous. I would just prefer more detail on the picks, which is really what drafting is about, and, if possible, a few more drafts where it is more clear that your skill in picking and playing is providing the wins, rather than your luck of opening bombs.
First, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the criticism, but I don't really know how to respond :/
I don't control what I open (though I wish I could sometimes). Apologies if I come off as abrasive in some regard, but I am not going to put on a show and be someone I am not.
Again thanks for watching the videos/reading the article, I will work on opening worse cards ;)
Best,
Zach
P.S. - I *will* work on going more in-depth on why I pick what I pick. Sometimes the problem with doing live commentary is you get so caught up in your own thought processes it is tough to translate exactly what they are to the viewers. <3
I considered this dude too but, as I said for other 4cmc shamans, I believe it's too slow. It does nothing until turn 5, which is the turn you ideally want to go off by, and you can't use it to deal damage to the dome.
Also it synergize with a very secondary aspect of the deck; first it's not granted you will have other wolf tokens on the battlefield by then and on its own, MotWH is the equivalent of a turn 5 un-kicked burst lightning that only targets a creature (and will probably result in the death of your token).
Second, the wolves are merely an added bonus of another card and most of the times are to be used as chump/block material since you don't want to block with your shamans.
I think I'd rather play a Leaf-Crowned Elder or Thrun rather than a MotWH if I had to play another 4cmc shaman.
That said it's not a bad card and if you're willing to share some game experiences where it has been relevant, you're more than welcomed and encouraged to do so.
Drafting with a Hick's style reminds me a lot of Nick Eisel's. Sanguine and boastful style, and also with regard to the unusually large number of on-color bombs showing up to support the wins. They are fun to read if one is into vicarious wish fullfilment, but since I don't open bombs at nearly as high a rate they aren't particularly useful for me. More commentary on the picks would also add a lot to the articles, particularly since in a number of cases the logic behind the pick wasn't apparent. For example, why not serra angel P1/P1 first draft, and why lord of unreal over chasm drake in draft 2, pack 1, pick 8? There just aren't that many illusions in M12.
Bloodthirst Control is probably your best bet, it has lots of synergistic plays and its aggro/control nature makes its speed adjustable to one's own playstyle. Either gwyned's version or pk23's from last week should be fine, just pick the one you like the most. Otherwise, if you're going all-in with Control, there's Esper Control with its double CA engine and complicated play sequence or even Cleomar's 4 Colors Control. You should be able to find them all in this week's Gatherling Entry. :-)
The extra wolves you get from the MotWH and Wolf-Skull Shamans synergize so you can use them to take down any of their creatures to clear the way for the rest of your dudes
What would you suggest I begin with? I'm not worried about cost (lol?) but I do consider myself a technical player who likes large decision trees... What would be a good jumping off point?
Embarassing grammar error in the title... most cheap = cheapest... I "MAY" have submitted the version of the article BEFORE I ran it through the spellchecker (or I forgot to save).
Sorry guys ;__;
What exactly were the "control" elements to this deck? If anything, this deck was more midrange-y - it really lacks board-control elements beyond something like Gideon's Lawkeeper, which was seemingly used offensively as much as defensively.
A fine article, but "slow" does not equal "control" - and I'm not sure you played a good example of the fast decks in the format, so the take-away may not be exactly what you've stated.
This isn't a great example of a control deck in that you drafted 3C Green and were fortunate that things worked out. You could have been Gx, or just forced back on the strength of having 1 of the top 10 cards in the set (vengeance), but playing 3 colors is hella loose.
You did win it though, so gj!
More traditional control decks in this format are Mono Black and U or B-based "people passed me the nuts" rather than "hey, I played three colors and it turned out well." I don't mean that this wasn't an interesting draft (because it was) but that success with this deck =/ control being good in the format, if you know what I mean.
Looking back at the video and the pack, you're definitely right. I'm not good at getting signals or interpreting right. The reason I picked the Lawkeeper (as I outlined in the video) is because it makes for an easier splash but your reason for picking the Outrage (seems more open) is a stronger reason to take the red card. Definitely would've changed things.
Thanks for the insight, I'll keep that in mind for future drafting.
Don't like garruk's horde much, p1p1, Aether adept was my pick there, the thing is just great in the format, though people overvalue blue so...
5th pick lawkeeper over outrage is an outrage though, GW is to be avoided and that pack had 2 great red cards meaning its most likely open where th lawkeeper could be a fluke.
Thanks Paul, I've been thinking of toying around with the article format recently. Definitely keeping the videos, but maybe shortening the written contact and having something a little concrete.
With RGD drafts coming up, I'm definitely recording that and even if I get one win in, I'm posting it up and trying something new.
The times I've done well in draft has been with Green/White or White/Blue - the mid-strength flyers can be very powerful simply because Red, Black and Green don't have much ammo against them (assuming you've got enough flyers to get past their removal, but I find Red/Black players love to remove something in the early game, running out of ammo if you've got a predominantly creature-flyer deck).
BUT - I still loose more than I win, although in Swiss I'm starting to average the 2 of 3 wins over the 1 in 3.
Yea definently, I appreciate the feedback. I guess the article could have been beefier, but I try to avoid just blathering once I've said what I came to say: at the same time, Whiffy was right about needing a potential list and talking about why it would be a possibility in the format.
So is Leaf-Crowned Elder; as said I think the possibility to play 2+ shamans on turn 4/5 is a lot better than dealing 2+ to a creature that may not even be there or may not die even if it is.
Having to tap both him and ALL your tokens is a big hit that will leave you without blockers unless you want to block with your shamans and if you don't tap them why did you play the card at all?
Consider this:
Zoo will run you over by the turn you have the master active and even if you're still alive you can only target one creature out of the 3/4 they will have in play by then.
Infect Shoal has already won twice by turn 5
Combo is not best known to have creatures, and when they have it's either Terastodon, Emrakul, 4x Hellkite or 3x Hellkite + 1x the other dragon I forgot the name of.
Since those are among the biggest threats of this deck I don't really see what this card will do for the deck so, since I don't have one, I'm not interested to make the purchase.
That said, I may be wrong and I will be more than willing to admit it and give the right credit for if proven to be.
The shaman deck peaked my interest too, until i realized that modern is a combo format and shamans are not fast enough and have no way to stop any combos.
This deck cant beat - Splinter twin, pyromancers ascencion, shoal infect.
It has a maybe 50% matchup vs 12post, but most likely much worse vs the red green post decks that run removal and through the breach.
So what can it beat?
Zoo sometimes, rogue decks sometimes.
Why play this deck over a deck that can win? Because this deck is actually fun!
Thanks for the clarity, Unspeakable.
I swear on everything I post all my events for the weekend when I say as much.
I do not always open amazing bombs but I do manage to always keep my rating in an acceptable range ( my personal gauge for how well I am doing ).
I guess I am an 'exceptional lucksack' because I am not hiding 'bad drafts', and when I say I won X in a row, I am not lying. I actually try to showcase the rating to 'prove' they are in succession, at least after I start a streak.
I don't want to come across as defensive, but it is a little bit offputting for you to suggest I am not posting everything when I say as much.
Also, being compared to a known cheater is a bit questionable as well :/
All in all thanks for taking enough of an interest to post man. I *do* appreciate it.
Best,
Zach
Very interested to hear the results of your testing and if you take her into daily queues. This deck has definitely piqued my interest. I do suspect you are cold to Splinter Twin / Shoal Infect with only 4 Bolts as your outs.
My comments weren't intended to be entirely negative. Nick Eisel was a good writer and a fun read, and was well regarded until he was accused of cheating at an event. The problem with highlighting drafts in which you open bombs is that it really doesn't teach us anything, and can be irritating to the rest of us mortals who have to scrape by with more mundane cards, particularly if there is a sense that opening bombs is being confused with skill. I suspect that you draft often enough that it would be possible to highlight drafts that were more challenging based on the picks provided. Either that or you are an exceptional lucksack.
All human beings "put on a show" when it comes to the face they present to society. This is particularly true for writers, who have the opportunity to choose all of their words with care. So it is rather weak to argue that you can't help yourself in this regard. However, I don't think I'd characterize your writing as "abrasive." Your writing is fairly clean and humorous. I would just prefer more detail on the picks, which is really what drafting is about, and, if possible, a few more drafts where it is more clear that your skill in picking and playing is providing the wins, rather than your luck of opening bombs.
he's a lot cheaper. I dunno. Give it a try at least ._.
First, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the criticism, but I don't really know how to respond :/
I don't control what I open (though I wish I could sometimes). Apologies if I come off as abrasive in some regard, but I am not going to put on a show and be someone I am not.
Again thanks for watching the videos/reading the article, I will work on opening worse cards ;)
Best,
Zach
P.S. - I *will* work on going more in-depth on why I pick what I pick. Sometimes the problem with doing live commentary is you get so caught up in your own thought processes it is tough to translate exactly what they are to the viewers. <3
I considered this dude too but, as I said for other 4cmc shamans, I believe it's too slow. It does nothing until turn 5, which is the turn you ideally want to go off by, and you can't use it to deal damage to the dome.
Also it synergize with a very secondary aspect of the deck; first it's not granted you will have other wolf tokens on the battlefield by then and on its own, MotWH is the equivalent of a turn 5 un-kicked burst lightning that only targets a creature (and will probably result in the death of your token).
Second, the wolves are merely an added bonus of another card and most of the times are to be used as chump/block material since you don't want to block with your shamans.
I think I'd rather play a Leaf-Crowned Elder or Thrun rather than a MotWH if I had to play another 4cmc shaman.
That said it's not a bad card and if you're willing to share some game experiences where it has been relevant, you're more than welcomed and encouraged to do so.
Drafting with a Hick's style reminds me a lot of Nick Eisel's. Sanguine and boastful style, and also with regard to the unusually large number of on-color bombs showing up to support the wins. They are fun to read if one is into vicarious wish fullfilment, but since I don't open bombs at nearly as high a rate they aren't particularly useful for me. More commentary on the picks would also add a lot to the articles, particularly since in a number of cases the logic behind the pick wasn't apparent. For example, why not serra angel P1/P1 first draft, and why lord of unreal over chasm drake in draft 2, pack 1, pick 8? There just aren't that many illusions in M12.
Bloodthirst Control is probably your best bet, it has lots of synergistic plays and its aggro/control nature makes its speed adjustable to one's own playstyle. Either gwyned's version or pk23's from last week should be fine, just pick the one you like the most. Otherwise, if you're going all-in with Control, there's Esper Control with its double CA engine and complicated play sequence or even Cleomar's 4 Colors Control. You should be able to find them all in this week's Gatherling Entry. :-)
And thank you for the feedback! ;-)
P.S. just click on the trophy to get the lists!
The extra wolves you get from the MotWH and Wolf-Skull Shamans synergize so you can use them to take down any of their creatures to clear the way for the rest of your dudes
I include that card in my Shaman deck... want to give it a test spin?
Hey Dave,
What would you suggest I begin with? I'm not worried about cost (lol?) but I do consider myself a technical player who likes large decision trees... What would be a good jumping off point?
Sick article as always, keep up the stellar work!
Best,
Zach
Embarassing grammar error in the title... most cheap = cheapest... I "MAY" have submitted the version of the article BEFORE I ran it through the spellchecker (or I forgot to save).
Sorry guys ;__;
What exactly were the "control" elements to this deck? If anything, this deck was more midrange-y - it really lacks board-control elements beyond something like Gideon's Lawkeeper, which was seemingly used offensively as much as defensively.
A fine article, but "slow" does not equal "control" - and I'm not sure you played a good example of the fast decks in the format, so the take-away may not be exactly what you've stated.
Ok (^^)
This isn't a great example of a control deck in that you drafted 3C Green and were fortunate that things worked out. You could have been Gx, or just forced back on the strength of having 1 of the top 10 cards in the set (vengeance), but playing 3 colors is hella loose.
You did win it though, so gj!
More traditional control decks in this format are Mono Black and U or B-based "people passed me the nuts" rather than "hey, I played three colors and it turned out well." I don't mean that this wasn't an interesting draft (because it was) but that success with this deck =/ control being good in the format, if you know what I mean.
Looking back at the video and the pack, you're definitely right. I'm not good at getting signals or interpreting right. The reason I picked the Lawkeeper (as I outlined in the video) is because it makes for an easier splash but your reason for picking the Outrage (seems more open) is a stronger reason to take the red card. Definitely would've changed things.
Thanks for the insight, I'll keep that in mind for future drafting.
Don't like garruk's horde much, p1p1, Aether adept was my pick there, the thing is just great in the format, though people overvalue blue so...
5th pick lawkeeper over outrage is an outrage though, GW is to be avoided and that pack had 2 great red cards meaning its most likely open where th lawkeeper could be a fluke.
Thanks Paul, I've been thinking of toying around with the article format recently. Definitely keeping the videos, but maybe shortening the written contact and having something a little concrete.
With RGD drafts coming up, I'm definitely recording that and even if I get one win in, I'm posting it up and trying something new.
The times I've done well in draft has been with Green/White or White/Blue - the mid-strength flyers can be very powerful simply because Red, Black and Green don't have much ammo against them (assuming you've got enough flyers to get past their removal, but I find Red/Black players love to remove something in the early game, running out of ammo if you've got a predominantly creature-flyer deck).
BUT - I still loose more than I win, although in Swiss I'm starting to average the 2 of 3 wins over the 1 in 3.
I like your article format, the vids, and your commentary.
Good work, sir.
I haven't watched anything beyong the draft portion, but when I get home....
Thank you, Josue.
Testing on nights when I am up past 11 PST....
also next time when you have some speculative buys, clue a brother in ;)
Yea definently, I appreciate the feedback. I guess the article could have been beefier, but I try to avoid just blathering once I've said what I came to say: at the same time, Whiffy was right about needing a potential list and talking about why it would be a possibility in the format.
So, a quick test revealed that I do not have a puremtgo email :(
If anyone wanted to get in contact with me about the podcast you can feel free to email me at keyasaleh@gmail.com