A good example is in the video -- spot removal is used early since I wasn't able to achieve threshold. However Swirling Sandstorm still is a 4 for 1 and then a 2 for 1.
Spot removal only "does the same job" as a sweeper in that it kills a creature, much in the same way Condemn kills a creature early that Wrath of God kills later. If my only way to kill creatures was Sandstorm, I'd be cold 50% of the time when I don't have Sandstorm in my opening hand.
Once again I think card advantage is critical in Pauper and the deck is using Sandstorm to generate card advantage and burn as a versatile kill condition which can be used early to establish control. Think Counter-Phoenix circa 1998.
But does this then become counter intuitive? The same cards you are using to turn on your sweeper and doing the same job?
You are a control deck, and once you survive the early turns you should be in a dominant board position (see MUC, MBC). On what turn are you attempting to cast Storm?
Hey JP, welcome to the format. I do all of my 100CS playing in the Casual room, both the "fun" decks and the one that I'm working on for the upcoming PE.
Nice job on the article, Tarmotog. I look forward to the next one!
There are a lot of good comments here. I'll try to give my thoughts on each.
First, I said in the article that I found Dissipate to be better than Faerie Trickery but that both were unnecessary. I think you said the same thing in your comment so I'm not sure where we disagree.
Second, you've got a good point about the featured deck being more "Rock" than "Control." I read the Flores article you linked butI think it supports my view that this deck is more Control-oriented. Given the number of counterspells and other disrupting agents, it is designed at stopping threats before they enter play, managing the ones that do, and ending the game with a big threat. To me, this is the definition of Control.
Third, I said this in the article and I feel I must state it again: I DON'T KNOW IF THE SWORDS OF DARKSTEEL SHOULD BE BANNED. All I was trying to say is that I'm finding them more and more difficult to play against. I asked the question: are they so difficult to play against that they warrant banning. You answered no, and you gave some pretty good reasons for that.
Fourth, I think Basic Land summed up what I said in my article about Combo, Control and Aggro. I'm certainly not making a blanket statement here. I pointed out that Hypercascade has an EXCELLENT match up against typical aggro decks and that it has a TERRIBLE match up against typical contrl decks. Because of this, we *might* find a metagame where this plays out directly.
Thanks for the comments! I hope this post clears some things up.
If there is going to be any development in that direction then what about also adding either a way to price the deck from MTGOTraders and/or buying the deck from them.
I appreciate that a calculated cost would go out of date very quickly however I do find myself pricing these things up by hand each time.
Winning through CoP Red is certainly more difficult although I still don't think it is something insurmountable. However since the article was submitted I've been toying with Flaring Pain in the SB against CoP Red and Prismatic Strands. It gives you another spell with value in the graveyard and can give you the one turn you need to sweep the board or torch your opponent out.
I agree the deck is conceding the MBC matchup. However I'm not certain that is such a terrible thing. I see more Affinity than MBC of late and the deck has a very favorable Affinity matchup. It becomes a situation where you have to decide whether you want to beat MBC or beat the decks that beat MBC and this deck takes the latter approach.
i enjoyed the article and the deck is pretty interesting : i ran it over 10 matches. Results : i won 8-2 vs a panel of different decks (MBA, MUC, Slivers ...) which is a quite good result.
I have also some comments :
> Mental note : if it is pretty good to reach the threshold, this card is sometime not very effective. I am thinking to decreason the number of them in the deck. Something like 2 should be enough imo.
> artifact/enchantment hate : to find a "destroy artifact" card is easy with Red, but about enchantment it is another story. A couple of bouncing effect card should be good in SB or maybe in MD, because once the opponent get a CoP:R, Mulldrifter arent enough to kill him imo.
> thunderbolt : i think this card could find a place into the deck. As a direct domage card or to destroy a flying threat which swirling cant reach. I will try with 2 of them instead of 2 mental note
> Wee Dragonauts : i think this card could be also a very nice add to your deck. There are many instant & sorcery spells in the decks so it will grow almost each turn. Plus it is a flying threat which is pretty synergical with swerling.
Only some thoughts ... good job, waiting for the next article
As long as you have either Careful Study or Mental Note you should have threshold around turn 5 which is fine since you can use Firebolt/Lighting Bolt/Incinerate to hit the first creature and inch your way closer to threshold.
As to Thunder vs. Torch I really prefer Torch against anything with Counterspells as it allows you to present a large threat on their life total while remaining close on mana to defend to the spell with. 6 damage means you are tapping 7 and they have to tap 4 (generally) for the first counter. If you swap to Thunder you have to tap 8 and they are only tapping 2. However Thunder is clearly superior against other aggro decks, I just feel like the deck already has a positive win % vs aggro other than RDW and want to keep every % I can against control.
I am happy to see you write another article. This one is much improved!
I love me a Swirling Sandstorm and am happy to see you try to make it work. The problem I have always found with it is that it is very very slow. Unlike other sweepers, this one needs a serious amount of set-up to work on turn 4 (which you have tried to enable with cards like Mental Note and Careful Study). The question is- is this fast enough for current Pauper?
Again, I believe the fundamental turn of the format to be turn 4 (consistent unmolested Sliver/Affinity/Storm kill, point for Golem with Counterspell back up, the Tendrils/Rats turn for MBC), so can you fire this spell off on turn four for value? Seeing as I have not tested your exact build, I do not know.
I also think you under estimate Slivers' defensive ability with cards like Prismatic Strands. By the time you can get value out of Storm, it might be too late.
Swirling Sandstorm is a card that warrants examination, but I am not sure it cuts the mustard. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
Nice job man. This looks like an exciting deck and I can't wait to try it out. The video was a nice touch too. Huge upgrade from your last article. Keep it up.
I strongly agree on the swiss comments... getting to play 3 rounds is a big bonus even if you lose all 3, just because you got to play them and learn. Getting screwed out of a draft in R1 with a good deck is frustrating as well.
I don't know where to start, but i think i should just say that if u want tips from someone who has 15 Qps this season solely based on Xed sealed, tt's urs truly.
verdant force is 5GGG which makes it very hard to cast. the real knack to the format is understanding the impact of casting costs and sizes.
for example in basic land's deck, u see plat angel is 7 mana.. u dun really want to have both a 7 n 8 mana creature gummed up in ur hand. u'd almost surely lose if the 7 mana thing wasn't a plat angel.
about grizzly bears, it's horrible because it does not do anything real if u think about how many 2/2s, 2/3, 2/4s, 1/3, 3/3, 4,3, 5/4, 6/4 etc there are in the format. The idea to bring home is that a 2/2 cannnot attack into anything bigger if unaided. the fact that it needs to have external help all the time to go into a fight makes it horrible and the thing is, it's in a color with creatures. the 1/3 spider > grizzly bears any day.
about composite golem, u have to learn to appreciate the fact that it's a 4/4. size is very important in the format. 4-5 mana gets u a 3/3 and there is nothing (again) that can attack into a 4/4 unaided, meaning that you can potentially set up at least 2 for 1 trades. it's much easier to cast than a "dead" verdant force especially if u have abundance out which would force u to get land #8 before you totally stop drawing lands when u could have stopped at #7. sure it's smaller than 5/4 or 6/4 wurms.. but u need to play with what u have and not compare them to what is available in other formats.
(actually it dies to only artifact removal and only a few other removals.. many popular ones can't kill it in one shot and it gets around the occassional story circle)
treetop bracers is a very strong card against certain decks because it can potentially make something unblockable. 10% is way under but u need to be able to judge when it is good and put it in.
more = better is really what makes reprints likable in this format.. unlike sasy clasic where u become "I have a playset of armaggedon from MED I.. why on earth did they reprint it in MEDII?"
JP: i think it's fine to play in the casual room.. i personally think singleton is about playing good cards.. or cheap cards that beat good cards. there's no real point making a deck that is so restricted already, only to want to make it "casual" (or weak).
I didn't see you get attacked much in the comments, but honestly maybe you should have. Making draft mistakes is no big deal if you are accountable, but when you are writing an article for an online publication and make the mistakes you made it's hard to understand. This isn't like nitpicking about maybe one card over another, but this is you claiming that the pack had nothing to offer for mono white when it in fact contained 2 really solid picks for it. Strange, I guess you are just chalking it up to jet lag?
re: Swiss, I have been a fan of it since they released it for drafts. I often felt as if I had a solid playable deck but would lose in the first round of a 4322 for whatever reason and never even get to play it. I started doing swiss because I wanted to get more value for my money, but quickly realized that I liked it much better because I felt like I not only made more in packs (I prob average about 2 packs or so per draft, maybe slightly more), but also my play improved a lot because I was getting in 3 rounds of play per draft. This meant I got to see what cards really performed and what didn't, and also I got to get used to the environment as well.
A good example is in the video -- spot removal is used early since I wasn't able to achieve threshold. However Swirling Sandstorm still is a 4 for 1 and then a 2 for 1.
Spot removal only "does the same job" as a sweeper in that it kills a creature, much in the same way Condemn kills a creature early that Wrath of God kills later. If my only way to kill creatures was Sandstorm, I'd be cold 50% of the time when I don't have Sandstorm in my opening hand.
Once again I think card advantage is critical in Pauper and the deck is using Sandstorm to generate card advantage and burn as a versatile kill condition which can be used early to establish control. Think Counter-Phoenix circa 1998.
But does this then become counter intuitive? The same cards you are using to turn on your sweeper and doing the same job?
You are a control deck, and once you survive the early turns you should be in a dominant board position (see MUC, MBC). On what turn are you attempting to cast Storm?
-Alex
You have plenty of spot removal for the early turns. You simply don't need to have Swirling Sandstorm online turn 4.
Hey JP, welcome to the format. I do all of my 100CS playing in the Casual room, both the "fun" decks and the one that I'm working on for the upcoming PE.
Nice job on the article, Tarmotog. I look forward to the next one!
There are a lot of good comments here. I'll try to give my thoughts on each.
First, I said in the article that I found Dissipate to be better than Faerie Trickery but that both were unnecessary. I think you said the same thing in your comment so I'm not sure where we disagree.
Second, you've got a good point about the featured deck being more "Rock" than "Control." I read the Flores article you linked butI think it supports my view that this deck is more Control-oriented. Given the number of counterspells and other disrupting agents, it is designed at stopping threats before they enter play, managing the ones that do, and ending the game with a big threat. To me, this is the definition of Control.
Third, I said this in the article and I feel I must state it again: I DON'T KNOW IF THE SWORDS OF DARKSTEEL SHOULD BE BANNED. All I was trying to say is that I'm finding them more and more difficult to play against. I asked the question: are they so difficult to play against that they warrant banning. You answered no, and you gave some pretty good reasons for that.
Fourth, I think Basic Land summed up what I said in my article about Combo, Control and Aggro. I'm certainly not making a blanket statement here. I pointed out that Hypercascade has an EXCELLENT match up against typical aggro decks and that it has a TERRIBLE match up against typical contrl decks. Because of this, we *might* find a metagame where this plays out directly.
Thanks for the comments! I hope this post clears some things up.
If there is going to be any development in that direction then what about also adding either a way to price the deck from MTGOTraders and/or buying the deck from them.
I appreciate that a calculated cost would go out of date very quickly however I do find myself pricing these things up by hand each time.
Please guys add a way to save deck lists as .txt format for testing in MTGO as some other magic sites do.
Thanks
nice idea. I am currently using Ancient Grundge but Flaring Pain is probably better
Winning through CoP Red is certainly more difficult although I still don't think it is something insurmountable. However since the article was submitted I've been toying with Flaring Pain in the SB against CoP Red and Prismatic Strands. It gives you another spell with value in the graveyard and can give you the one turn you need to sweep the board or torch your opponent out.
I agree the deck is conceding the MBC matchup. However I'm not certain that is such a terrible thing. I see more Affinity than MBC of late and the deck has a very favorable Affinity matchup. It becomes a situation where you have to decide whether you want to beat MBC or beat the decks that beat MBC and this deck takes the latter approach.
i enjoyed the article and the deck is pretty interesting : i ran it over 10 matches. Results : i won 8-2 vs a panel of different decks (MBA, MUC, Slivers ...) which is a quite good result.
I have also some comments :
> Mental note : if it is pretty good to reach the threshold, this card is sometime not very effective. I am thinking to decreason the number of them in the deck. Something like 2 should be enough imo.
> artifact/enchantment hate : to find a "destroy artifact" card is easy with Red, but about enchantment it is another story. A couple of bouncing effect card should be good in SB or maybe in MD, because once the opponent get a CoP:R, Mulldrifter arent enough to kill him imo.
> thunderbolt : i think this card could find a place into the deck. As a direct domage card or to destroy a flying threat which swirling cant reach. I will try with 2 of them instead of 2 mental note
> Wee Dragonauts : i think this card could be also a very nice add to your deck. There are many instant & sorcery spells in the decks so it will grow almost each turn. Plus it is a flying threat which is pretty synergical with swerling.
Only some thoughts ... good job, waiting for the next article
As long as you have either Careful Study or Mental Note you should have threshold around turn 5 which is fine since you can use Firebolt/Lighting Bolt/Incinerate to hit the first creature and inch your way closer to threshold.
As to Thunder vs. Torch I really prefer Torch against anything with Counterspells as it allows you to present a large threat on their life total while remaining close on mana to defend to the spell with. 6 damage means you are tapping 7 and they have to tap 4 (generally) for the first counter. If you swap to Thunder you have to tap 8 and they are only tapping 2. However Thunder is clearly superior against other aggro decks, I just feel like the deck already has a positive win % vs aggro other than RDW and want to keep every % I can against control.
I am happy to see you write another article. This one is much improved!
I love me a Swirling Sandstorm and am happy to see you try to make it work. The problem I have always found with it is that it is very very slow. Unlike other sweepers, this one needs a serious amount of set-up to work on turn 4 (which you have tried to enable with cards like Mental Note and Careful Study). The question is- is this fast enough for current Pauper?
Again, I believe the fundamental turn of the format to be turn 4 (consistent unmolested Sliver/Affinity/Storm kill, point for Golem with Counterspell back up, the Tendrils/Rats turn for MBC), so can you fire this spell off on turn four for value? Seeing as I have not tested your exact build, I do not know.
I also think you under estimate Slivers' defensive ability with cards like Prismatic Strands. By the time you can get value out of Storm, it might be too late.
Swirling Sandstorm is a card that warrants examination, but I am not sure it cuts the mustard. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
-Alex
It is an upgrade from your last article, but isn't MBC the deck to beat in Pauper? This concedes that matchup.
Nice job man. This looks like an exciting deck and I can't wait to try it out. The video was a nice touch too. Huge upgrade from your last article. Keep it up.
It sound to me like you can exploit the current block constructed format if you have a deck that beats the deck everyone else is playing.
Ysosad ?
While I didn't enjoy your previous article (and commented so), this is quite an interesting deck, and article.
How fast/consistently do you normally achieve threshold with this list?
Any thoughts on Rolling Storm main, instead of Kaervek's Torch? Although it does fulfill the same role as sandstorm, to a certain extent..
Also, I feel a need to stick in more counters..but can't see what to take out.
Anyway, good job, always loved counterburn. So cool to be able to play hydro AND pyroblast out of the sideboard :D
Awesome video + commentary, very cool deck idea.
Great Article, loved the vid too
Much better deck than the gush deck. I dont like your sideboard plains lifeburst plan, and exclude should probably be maindeck. A good deck though.
I strongly agree on the swiss comments... getting to play 3 rounds is a big bonus even if you lose all 3, just because you got to play them and learn. Getting screwed out of a draft in R1 with a good deck is frustrating as well.
I don't know where to start, but i think i should just say that if u want tips from someone who has 15 Qps this season solely based on Xed sealed, tt's urs truly.
verdant force is 5GGG which makes it very hard to cast. the real knack to the format is understanding the impact of casting costs and sizes.
for example in basic land's deck, u see plat angel is 7 mana.. u dun really want to have both a 7 n 8 mana creature gummed up in ur hand. u'd almost surely lose if the 7 mana thing wasn't a plat angel.
about grizzly bears, it's horrible because it does not do anything real if u think about how many 2/2s, 2/3, 2/4s, 1/3, 3/3, 4,3, 5/4, 6/4 etc there are in the format. The idea to bring home is that a 2/2 cannnot attack into anything bigger if unaided. the fact that it needs to have external help all the time to go into a fight makes it horrible and the thing is, it's in a color with creatures. the 1/3 spider > grizzly bears any day.
about composite golem, u have to learn to appreciate the fact that it's a 4/4. size is very important in the format. 4-5 mana gets u a 3/3 and there is nothing (again) that can attack into a 4/4 unaided, meaning that you can potentially set up at least 2 for 1 trades. it's much easier to cast than a "dead" verdant force especially if u have abundance out which would force u to get land #8 before you totally stop drawing lands when u could have stopped at #7. sure it's smaller than 5/4 or 6/4 wurms.. but u need to play with what u have and not compare them to what is available in other formats.
(actually it dies to only artifact removal and only a few other removals.. many popular ones can't kill it in one shot and it gets around the occassional story circle)
treetop bracers is a very strong card against certain decks because it can potentially make something unblockable. 10% is way under but u need to be able to judge when it is good and put it in.
yes.. It's underground sea.. =x sorrie bout tt..
more = better is really what makes reprints likable in this format.. unlike sasy clasic where u become "I have a playset of armaggedon from MED I.. why on earth did they reprint it in MEDII?"
JP: i think it's fine to play in the casual room.. i personally think singleton is about playing good cards.. or cheap cards that beat good cards. there's no real point making a deck that is so restricted already, only to want to make it "casual" (or weak).
FYI, Verdant Force is 8cc. I agree with Tarmotog here, using Composite Golem instead is a reasonable plan for mana curve considerations.
I didn't see you get attacked much in the comments, but honestly maybe you should have. Making draft mistakes is no big deal if you are accountable, but when you are writing an article for an online publication and make the mistakes you made it's hard to understand. This isn't like nitpicking about maybe one card over another, but this is you claiming that the pack had nothing to offer for mono white when it in fact contained 2 really solid picks for it. Strange, I guess you are just chalking it up to jet lag?
re: Swiss, I have been a fan of it since they released it for drafts. I often felt as if I had a solid playable deck but would lose in the first round of a 4322 for whatever reason and never even get to play it. I started doing swiss because I wanted to get more value for my money, but quickly realized that I liked it much better because I felt like I not only made more in packs (I prob average about 2 packs or so per draft, maybe slightly more), but also my play improved a lot because I was getting in 3 rounds of play per draft. This meant I got to see what cards really performed and what didn't, and also I got to get used to the environment as well.