A few things: Any deck that plays Blue these days and doesn't/can't play Jace v.2 (due to budget concerns mainly), should have Jace v.1 at least in its sideboard. It's already a decent card on its own but remember that it's also your best way of killing Jace v.2!!! And considering the current meta, you will definately face him more than a few times. So don't forget to add Jace v.1 to your decks.
The decks in the article are all at testing stages and I also don't have lots of the new cards yet (Gideon for starters). I will especially try hard to make that Big BUG deck work because I like a lot. I mean Jace v.2 + Pulse are really solving a lot of problems on their own. I'm even thinking of adding Lorescale Coatl to the mix because it has a lot of synergy with Jace v.2; each time you Brainstorm with him, the snake gets +3/+3... permanently! Sphinx of Lost Truths also gives it +3/+3 when you play it. I'm now also working on that version. If I can make it into something powerful, I will most definately mention it in a future article.
Finally: I know that not many people find rogue decks appealing but I hope that this one was useful at least for a few players out there.
I did recently spend some tournament winnings on picking up a lot of the eldarzi spawn generators albeit for a different deck. However you are correct in that Emrakul's Hatcher would be probably one of the best to sub in if need be. That said if I went with the dragon-theme kill i would probably take out the remaining 3 mulldrifters for the emrakul's hatcher.
Indeed.
I might try the Grixis version without Jace. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that the good decks have 2-6 $50+ cards but it's certainly a barrier to entry.
Edit: Nice job Wizards on making mythics "non-staples". Didn't they make some whole big announcement about how the mythic rarity wouldn't be aimed at staples?
It's not about the quantity of the commons and uncommons, it's about the quality of the commons and uncommons.
Growth Spasm, Kozilek's Predator, Nest Invader, and Might of the Masses are all solid commons.
Emrakul's Hatcher and Lavafume Invoker are also solid commons.
Brood Birthing, Spawning Breath, and Raid Bombardment are all weaker than their green counterpart commons. That is why I said that it's easier for green than red. The green commons form a solid sealed deck mana curve and creature base. The red commons form a sealed deck base that is much more questionable.
Yep, Distortion Strike is a very good card, and an easily underrated card. If I had seen it in action more before I wrote the article, I would have mentioned it in the Mirrodin-Shatter effect type cards.
Stealthbadger: Ah yes, you are correct. I will have to remove him from the deck. Mistakes like that are frequently made in this format. As for rule number 1, people who play this format seem to be drifting away from the whole 1 male per deck idea. There are too many fights over them. I like to build my decks with no men in them at all.
Which leads to my next point; Plusua, I never claimed it wasn't sexist. In fact, I directly stated that the claims of sexism have merit. (However, technically it's objectification of women. Sexism is something entirely different, but let's not argue semantics.) Removing the males from the deck IS a step towards removing that sexism. Or are you saying that because I am a man making an all female deck, THAT is what makes it sexist? If I were a woman with an all male deck, would that be equally sexist? Is it the name, as midnight dancer, said? Maybe. We tried changing the name one we started getting rid of the men. We tried Girl Power, Female Format, Lady's Night, Format X... they all just get back to the old saying, "What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name still not smell as sweet?" Changing the name isn't going to change what the format is. Examples of that are already in Magic. When Type 1 changed to Vintage, did it really matter and impact the way the format was played? No, it didn't.
I have heard this line of reasoning many many times about the claims of objectification of women, and while the format does point in that direction, it is only using things that are already in place. Magic the Gathering is played mostly, NOT TOTALLY, but mostly by men. WOTC knows this and caters to their audience. These cards ALREADY exist. I did not make them. Look at that Elvish Ranger card. Do you think THAT was made to please women? No, it was made to please Magic's target audience; men. Look at (Perilous Forays), which got the attention of Matt Cavotta in one of his articles. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mc15 In it he attempts to politically maneuver that even though the game is designed with 14 year-old boys in mind, the card art is not "technically" calling for it to be scantly clad women. He then goes on to pass the buck onto the artist and says the creative team is guiltless in letting such a card get cleared. He is wrong about that; the creative team should be held accountable for that since they had to approve the art. Since they did approve it, even though he denies it, he is giving implied consent to the publishing of more sexually suggestive artwork. And that is not the only case, look at (Radha, Heir to Keld). In the artwork you can see she is wearing low-rise, hip-hugging pants with an OPEN FLY, which also reveals she is not wearing underwear. (Ponder) has VISIBLE nipples on it. WOTC published that artwork, not me. It is pretty clear why those artwork were given the "ok;" they pander to Magic's primary audience of men and young boys. If you don't like the card art, perhaps you could start a letter writing campaign to have WOTC remove all art from cards. Then no one can be offended.
So because I put them all in the same deck, I'm a sexist? Hardly. I am using the tools WOTC published. If you have a beef with the objectification of women in Magic, take it up with WOTC. I was going to put the topics of those last two paragraphs into the article, but I didn't want this to be a debate about objectification of women in magic. However, I would like to point out that I have played these decks numerous times in Singleton and in EDH and virtually no one has noticed the theme until AFTER I tell them. It usually goes like this:
Me: Did you notice anything in common about all my cards?
Them: Ummmm they're black?
Me: Aside from their color.
Them: Ummm no
Me: They all have pictures of women on them.
*they look through my graveyard and what's in play*
Them: Wow, I didn't even notice. Crazy.
Why does that happen? Well, as I mentioned in the article, even though the cards have pictures on them, as players we're not really trained to look at them or even acknowledge the artwork. We focus on the text and what the card does. I don't see anything inherently objectify if I run only cards with pictures of women on them in my deck. I would venture to say that there are plenty of your own decks that have a majority of the cards featuring women.
I think the biggest beef people have with this format is the name. Yes, it is an unfortunate name and could use a better one. However, this is the name it has been using for the past 5 years, so it's kinda stuck now. I would welcome suggestions for name changes.
Lastly, I'll say, if you find yourself not liking the format, don't play it. No one is forcing you to read this article or play the format.
To all of the people calling this format sexist --
You're right. It is sexist. But that's the point. It's supposed to be a morally reprehensible format, which is where the humor of it is derived from. I wouldn't expect, and wouldn't want, WotC to officially sanction a format called HAREM, as that would be grossly unprofessional of them, but for kitchen table humor, the format makes perfect sense.
Also if we're talking about RoE includes, spawn-generators wouldn't be a bad idea as they're mana sources when you need them to be and tokens when you need them to be. I'm thinking primarily of Emrakul's Hatcher, who would get you to a turn 6 Warp World without any other help (and you have plenty of help in there), but others could be fun too!
As far as Ob Nixilis he has been left out since I dont own any. But he could definitely be fun in the deck. As could an eldrazi or two now that I think about it. Warp World into Emrakul...
Since I forgot to include this but I normally do: the price of this deck was 11.64
My bad on nucklavee too, i dont know why i thought it was flying.
Also for no difference in price you can always remove the siege-gang commanders and a single mulldrifter for 4 bogardan hellkites and a Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund, giving you the ability to win in one a single warp world or at $4.00 a piece you can squeeze in Ob Nixilis
I certainly think this is a fun idea for a casual format, and makes people look at the cards in a different way. But the name "harem" is just too loaded with sexist overtones. Call it "Girl Power" or some such, perhaps.
This article was a fun read...please ignore the super-sensitive/Mr. Rodgers fans above...good grief folks...it's a silly idea for the fun of it, get over yourselves and your self righteous postings. What's next?!?!? - Anyone with the letter "A" in their names is going to be offended if a card uses it?!?! "...OH NO, my name has an "A" in it and wizards printed a mean spell, I'm offended...boo hoo...where's my blankie..."
Good article, and in case you missed it, "SHELTER" has a pretty hot chick on it, more of a libriarian hottie...oh no, I'm being offensive to women of the intelligent persuasion now...oh no, ever consider that it's also flattering to be "hot."
Your card pool definitely seems a bit on the weaker side of things, so I'm not sure there is a build that would have gotten anybody to the top 8. I'm not sure what your fascination with white is though. Student of Warfare is a bomb IF you are playing heavy white but this pool doesn't have enough solid white spells to justify it. Dawnglare Invoker is huge, but your white cards aren't deep enough to go anywhere.
If I had to build this, I would definitely go green/black as your green has some halfway decent ramping spells and token generators to go with Pennon Blade, U. Crusher, Skeletal Worm, and Ogre Cleaver. Black works pretty well with Gruul Draz Assassin, Vendetta, and the rest.
Man, reveillark would be great in this deck! It had never occured to me before, but reading this article I was thinking about stuff to warp, and then half way down the page, there's a great big reveillark staring back at me!
Unfortunately, I have the 'larks offline and the warps online, so I'll probably never get to brew..
I use Anarchist instead of Nucklavee. He only costs a single mana and his cmc is 5 versus 6. Where is your Ob Nixlis? He kills upons resolution. Landfall triggers off Warpworld. So even a sinlge Ob NIxilis or Hedron Crab can destroy an opponent.
Can I just say how happy I am this card was the release card? It was the only thing I really wanted from this mostly terribad set (for constructed anyway, your limited mileage may vary).
eldrazi stuff: i think it's right that you sold everything in eldrazi before events begin. i did the same including buying during PR and sold during that awkward time when no PRs, no events - only packs and made a killing on everything (e.g. wall of omens-4. awakening zones-10. see beyond-2(for one copy!) etc.)
as for your pool: i think you had to play W/B based on assassin and student of warfare + removal (consume). those guys are too good, esp. assassin. unfortunately, i don't like boring guys like lone missionary and other assorted 2/X or x/2 vanilla guys. feels like they play a 5-drop and it blanks half of your men. hand is also an eldrazi which is nice, but a bit underwhelming..i think i woulda definitely played u. crusher as he's one of the playable eldrazi. good luck in the swiss sealeds.
So, er, you say at the top that there MUST be a legendary male leader in the deck, and then your final list doesn't have one? Is the male removed from the game, a-la EDH, or just somewhere in the deck?
Also, how come Butcher of Malakir got in there? His art looks pretty male to me, and his flavour text confirms as much..
each to their own, and there is certainly an article to be written women in magic art (I know, because I have one half-written). But the whole 'harem' thing is a bit crass.
No rating for this article because it is sexist in nature and limits in such a narrow way everything there is to be good about MTG. What happens when something like this idea really takes off in popularity and ends up doing more harm that good because you focused the design around women. You're setting yourself up, but good luck, at least it's different, sexist but different. Oh by the way, you can't excuse yourself with a disclaimer insertion, you may not have wanted to excuse the fact, but that's what it was saying to everyone who read it, either way it had no bearing on the obvious.
Thanks for the comments guys.
A few things: Any deck that plays Blue these days and doesn't/can't play Jace v.2 (due to budget concerns mainly), should have Jace v.1 at least in its sideboard. It's already a decent card on its own but remember that it's also your best way of killing Jace v.2!!! And considering the current meta, you will definately face him more than a few times. So don't forget to add Jace v.1 to your decks.
The decks in the article are all at testing stages and I also don't have lots of the new cards yet (Gideon for starters). I will especially try hard to make that Big BUG deck work because I like a lot. I mean Jace v.2 + Pulse are really solving a lot of problems on their own. I'm even thinking of adding Lorescale Coatl to the mix because it has a lot of synergy with Jace v.2; each time you Brainstorm with him, the snake gets +3/+3... permanently! Sphinx of Lost Truths also gives it +3/+3 when you play it. I'm now also working on that version. If I can make it into something powerful, I will most definately mention it in a future article.
Finally: I know that not many people find rogue decks appealing but I hope that this one was useful at least for a few players out there.
Thanks all for reading.
LE
I did recently spend some tournament winnings on picking up a lot of the eldarzi spawn generators albeit for a different deck. However you are correct in that Emrakul's Hatcher would be probably one of the best to sub in if need be. That said if I went with the dragon-theme kill i would probably take out the remaining 3 mulldrifters for the emrakul's hatcher.
Indeed.
I might try the Grixis version without Jace. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that the good decks have 2-6 $50+ cards but it's certainly a barrier to entry.
Edit: Nice job Wizards on making mythics "non-staples". Didn't they make some whole big announcement about how the mythic rarity wouldn't be aimed at staples?
It's not about the quantity of the commons and uncommons, it's about the quality of the commons and uncommons.
Growth Spasm, Kozilek's Predator, Nest Invader, and Might of the Masses are all solid commons.
Emrakul's Hatcher and Lavafume Invoker are also solid commons.
Brood Birthing, Spawning Breath, and Raid Bombardment are all weaker than their green counterpart commons. That is why I said that it's easier for green than red. The green commons form a solid sealed deck mana curve and creature base. The red commons form a sealed deck base that is much more questionable.
Yep, Distortion Strike is a very good card, and an easily underrated card. If I had seen it in action more before I wrote the article, I would have mentioned it in the Mirrodin-Shatter effect type cards.
Doesn't that deck want Nirkana Revenant?
Stealthbadger: Ah yes, you are correct. I will have to remove him from the deck. Mistakes like that are frequently made in this format. As for rule number 1, people who play this format seem to be drifting away from the whole 1 male per deck idea. There are too many fights over them. I like to build my decks with no men in them at all.
Which leads to my next point; Plusua, I never claimed it wasn't sexist. In fact, I directly stated that the claims of sexism have merit. (However, technically it's objectification of women. Sexism is something entirely different, but let's not argue semantics.) Removing the males from the deck IS a step towards removing that sexism. Or are you saying that because I am a man making an all female deck, THAT is what makes it sexist? If I were a woman with an all male deck, would that be equally sexist? Is it the name, as midnight dancer, said? Maybe. We tried changing the name one we started getting rid of the men. We tried Girl Power, Female Format, Lady's Night, Format X... they all just get back to the old saying, "What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name still not smell as sweet?" Changing the name isn't going to change what the format is. Examples of that are already in Magic. When Type 1 changed to Vintage, did it really matter and impact the way the format was played? No, it didn't.
I have heard this line of reasoning many many times about the claims of objectification of women, and while the format does point in that direction, it is only using things that are already in place. Magic the Gathering is played mostly, NOT TOTALLY, but mostly by men. WOTC knows this and caters to their audience. These cards ALREADY exist. I did not make them. Look at that Elvish Ranger card. Do you think THAT was made to please women? No, it was made to please Magic's target audience; men. Look at (Perilous Forays), which got the attention of Matt Cavotta in one of his articles. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mc15 In it he attempts to politically maneuver that even though the game is designed with 14 year-old boys in mind, the card art is not "technically" calling for it to be scantly clad women. He then goes on to pass the buck onto the artist and says the creative team is guiltless in letting such a card get cleared. He is wrong about that; the creative team should be held accountable for that since they had to approve the art. Since they did approve it, even though he denies it, he is giving implied consent to the publishing of more sexually suggestive artwork. And that is not the only case, look at (Radha, Heir to Keld). In the artwork you can see she is wearing low-rise, hip-hugging pants with an OPEN FLY, which also reveals she is not wearing underwear. (Ponder) has VISIBLE nipples on it. WOTC published that artwork, not me. It is pretty clear why those artwork were given the "ok;" they pander to Magic's primary audience of men and young boys. If you don't like the card art, perhaps you could start a letter writing campaign to have WOTC remove all art from cards. Then no one can be offended.
So because I put them all in the same deck, I'm a sexist? Hardly. I am using the tools WOTC published. If you have a beef with the objectification of women in Magic, take it up with WOTC. I was going to put the topics of those last two paragraphs into the article, but I didn't want this to be a debate about objectification of women in magic. However, I would like to point out that I have played these decks numerous times in Singleton and in EDH and virtually no one has noticed the theme until AFTER I tell them. It usually goes like this:
Me: Did you notice anything in common about all my cards?
Them: Ummmm they're black?
Me: Aside from their color.
Them: Ummm no
Me: They all have pictures of women on them.
*they look through my graveyard and what's in play*
Them: Wow, I didn't even notice. Crazy.
Why does that happen? Well, as I mentioned in the article, even though the cards have pictures on them, as players we're not really trained to look at them or even acknowledge the artwork. We focus on the text and what the card does. I don't see anything inherently objectify if I run only cards with pictures of women on them in my deck. I would venture to say that there are plenty of your own decks that have a majority of the cards featuring women.
I think the biggest beef people have with this format is the name. Yes, it is an unfortunate name and could use a better one. However, this is the name it has been using for the past 5 years, so it's kinda stuck now. I would welcome suggestions for name changes.
Lastly, I'll say, if you find yourself not liking the format, don't play it. No one is forcing you to read this article or play the format.
To all of the people calling this format sexist --
You're right. It is sexist. But that's the point. It's supposed to be a morally reprehensible format, which is where the humor of it is derived from. I wouldn't expect, and wouldn't want, WotC to officially sanction a format called HAREM, as that would be grossly unprofessional of them, but for kitchen table humor, the format makes perfect sense.
Also if we're talking about RoE includes, spawn-generators wouldn't be a bad idea as they're mana sources when you need them to be and tokens when you need them to be. I'm thinking primarily of Emrakul's Hatcher, who would get you to a turn 6 Warp World without any other help (and you have plenty of help in there), but others could be fun too!
As far as Ob Nixilis he has been left out since I dont own any. But he could definitely be fun in the deck. As could an eldrazi or two now that I think about it. Warp World into Emrakul...
Since I forgot to include this but I normally do: the price of this deck was 11.64
My bad on nucklavee too, i dont know why i thought it was flying.
Also for no difference in price you can always remove the siege-gang commanders and a single mulldrifter for 4 bogardan hellkites and a Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund, giving you the ability to win in one a single warp world or at $4.00 a piece you can squeeze in Ob Nixilis
Cute
I certainly think this is a fun idea for a casual format, and makes people look at the cards in a different way. But the name "harem" is just too loaded with sexist overtones. Call it "Girl Power" or some such, perhaps.
agreed butcher of malakir is totally a dude
This article was a fun read...please ignore the super-sensitive/Mr. Rodgers fans above...good grief folks...it's a silly idea for the fun of it, get over yourselves and your self righteous postings. What's next?!?!? - Anyone with the letter "A" in their names is going to be offended if a card uses it?!?! "...OH NO, my name has an "A" in it and wizards printed a mean spell, I'm offended...boo hoo...where's my blankie..."
Good article, and in case you missed it, "SHELTER" has a pretty hot chick on it, more of a libriarian hottie...oh no, I'm being offensive to women of the intelligent persuasion now...oh no, ever consider that it's also flattering to be "hot."
Your card pool definitely seems a bit on the weaker side of things, so I'm not sure there is a build that would have gotten anybody to the top 8. I'm not sure what your fascination with white is though. Student of Warfare is a bomb IF you are playing heavy white but this pool doesn't have enough solid white spells to justify it. Dawnglare Invoker is huge, but your white cards aren't deep enough to go anywhere.
If I had to build this, I would definitely go green/black as your green has some halfway decent ramping spells and token generators to go with Pennon Blade, U. Crusher, Skeletal Worm, and Ogre Cleaver. Black works pretty well with Gruul Draz Assassin, Vendetta, and the rest.
Man, reveillark would be great in this deck! It had never occured to me before, but reading this article I was thinking about stuff to warp, and then half way down the page, there's a great big reveillark staring back at me!
Unfortunately, I have the 'larks offline and the warps online, so I'll probably never get to brew..
I use Anarchist instead of Nucklavee. He only costs a single mana and his cmc is 5 versus 6. Where is your Ob Nixlis? He kills upons resolution. Landfall triggers off Warpworld. So even a sinlge Ob NIxilis or Hedron Crab can destroy an opponent.
Excellent decks LE. Some of them almost make me wish I owned the cards.
Can I just say how happy I am this card was the release card? It was the only thing I really wanted from this mostly terribad set (for constructed anyway, your limited mileage may vary).
Nucklavee doesn't fly ;) Also Keeper of Progenitus in plural should be Keepers of Progenitus
nice, i went 7-3, 33rd. :(
eldrazi stuff: i think it's right that you sold everything in eldrazi before events begin. i did the same including buying during PR and sold during that awkward time when no PRs, no events - only packs and made a killing on everything (e.g. wall of omens-4. awakening zones-10. see beyond-2(for one copy!) etc.)
as for your pool: i think you had to play W/B based on assassin and student of warfare + removal (consume). those guys are too good, esp. assassin. unfortunately, i don't like boring guys like lone missionary and other assorted 2/X or x/2 vanilla guys. feels like they play a 5-drop and it blanks half of your men. hand is also an eldrazi which is nice, but a bit underwhelming..i think i woulda definitely played u. crusher as he's one of the playable eldrazi. good luck in the swiss sealeds.
this format is compeletely wrong. agree with above poster on all.
So, er, you say at the top that there MUST be a legendary male leader in the deck, and then your final list doesn't have one? Is the male removed from the game, a-la EDH, or just somewhere in the deck?
Also, how come Butcher of Malakir got in there? His art looks pretty male to me, and his flavour text confirms as much..
each to their own, and there is certainly an article to be written women in magic art (I know, because I have one half-written). But the whole 'harem' thing is a bit crass.
No rating for this article because it is sexist in nature and limits in such a narrow way everything there is to be good about MTG. What happens when something like this idea really takes off in popularity and ends up doing more harm that good because you focused the design around women. You're setting yourself up, but good luck, at least it's different, sexist but different. Oh by the way, you can't excuse yourself with a disclaimer insertion, you may not have wanted to excuse the fact, but that's what it was saying to everyone who read it, either way it had no bearing on the obvious.