|
In Development – Developing a Context
Posted by Riki
September 29, 2009 | 
24 comments
In Development – Developing a Context
Sixty percent.
In about half a week, we say goodbye to the Lorwyn-Shadowmoor super block and welcome Zendikar into Standard, moving us from a Standard pool of 1,640 cards into one featuring only 977. That leaves us with a new working pool a mere sixty percent as large as the one we're, in some cases perhaps happily, walking away from.
Last week I touched on the idea of how we can, somewhat in the abstract, evaluate a card's worth based on the role we assign to it. We're necessarily stuck to some degree in the abstract when we follow the organic release of spoilers ahead of a set's official release. This is only emphasized as we transition between Standard environments, when we can't rely on the basic templates we've come to know from the first half of a more developed Standard year.
This week, with full official spoiler in hand, it's time for us to look at deck designs for the new Standard. This is also a special opportunity to examine how we can approach the annual ritual of a Standard environment rollover, and how we can effectively and affordably narrow down our deck choices before we go out and purchase the actual cardboard that powers our play.
Picking fights
In two months, preparing for a tournament will be an entirely different and rather more known quantity, something I'll likely discuss when the time comes. At the moment, when we're faced with a pleasing plethora of novel cards that in turn suggest new deck designs, we need to figure out how to place ourselves on an appropriate footing. So how do we do that? What does that even mean? How, before there's ever been even one FNM at the local store, do we decide which deck designs are likely to be worth bringing to that FNM? More to the point, how do we decide that it's worth buying those playsets of key rares?
What is, in a word, our context?
Going into any new environment, be it a full set rotation, the introduction of a new set, or, for those highly motivated among us, a Pro Tour in a brand-new format, we want to develop a sense of the opposition we'll be facing. Mechanically, this can, and often does, mean compiling actual deck lists – but that's much more in the realm of developing a playtest gauntlet. This is a useful step, but for later in the process. Right here and now, what we care about are the general themes we can expect to face each time we sit down at the table.
If this sounds awfully familiar, it may be because you read last week's column and realize that I'm suggesting that we need to compile a list of answers to the question "What does your deck do?" for a collection of likely deck designs. Going into a new Standard, there are a few big places to look for this kind of information:
1 – The prior Standard
2 – The most recent Block
3 – The buzz
4 – The obvious stuff
Part one is largely an evaluation of how badly each archetype will be kneecapped by rotation. The tribal decks, comprising Faeries, Kithkin, Merfolk, and various uses of Elves, are gone. "Slap it all together" Five-Color Control is done. Various cascade aggro and control decks will have to play nicer with their manabases, but will likely remain viable.
Part one nicely segues into part two, where we simply see how effectively we can plug each Block archetype into a new Standard. The answer here is pretty concise – most of them will plug in just fine, and their mana will be smoothed out significantly by the options available in M10 and Zendikar. Once again, this means cascade aggro and control builds, ranging from three through all five colors. Naya and green-white aggro builds are also likely to be reasonably portable. I'm dubious about Esper aggro making it through into Standard, and wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to force that transition.
Parts three and four amount to you and everyone else in the world staring at the cards for a while and trying to pick out some additional insight. The "obvious stuff" embraces all those things that stand right out when you look at the cards in the pool, such as the fact that there seems to be a strong vampire linear spread across M10 and Zendikar, or the similar fact that there are a lot of cards that could potentially support mono-black aggro or control. Similarly, Zendikar tells us that lands matter, so we can expect people to build in that direction for a while, whether it's a good idea or not. We then wisely acknowledge that not all the "obvious stuff" is obvious to us, and look around for other analyses, whether it's of specific cards or proposed builds. There's nothing quite so handy as letting other people obsess over a problem for you and then leveraging their insight into making your own work better.
With my own version of these four steps compiled, I see a forthcoming Standard with some notable and entertaining features. We can expect cascade to retain its place in both aggro and control modes, as card advantage is still card advantage. At the same time, we're losing some of our "card advantage creatures," meaning that for the moment we don't have to work around Spectral Procession, Cloudgoat Ranger, and an Overrun effect being dropped on top of a field of hobbits to wipe us out. We've also seen a pretty robust crippling of countermagic, at least for the moment, as the Faeries powerhouse is no longer keeping us in check, and other decks have lost Cryptic Command and Broken Ambitions. This, in turn, means that big "haymaker" spells have a sudden free pass. If you're going into a control matchup, expect to have Identity Crisis, Mind Sludge, Cruel Ultimatum, Thought Hemorrhage, and all sorts of other big-ticket nonsense aimed at you. Finally, vampires and mono-black decks of various stripes look to be entirely legitimate contenders.
Let's boil it down. We need to beat cascade, black, vampires, and big spells aimed at our head. Check.
We have our environment firmly – we hope – in hand. Time to build some decks.
Open design work
In designing decks, I spend an awful lot of time not touching any cards. There's research on Gatherer, putting lists together, pondering mana bases, and so forth. However, even after I've settled on some concepts I want to test out, I still don't rush out and put together the actual deck, preferring to rely on some form of proxy play before I grab the actual cards. This isn't even about buying the cards – although it's good when you haven't yet decided where you're going to spend your cash. Rather, it's so I can very quickly test and evaluate design elements. Is a deck's mana going to work? Is it likely to curve out properly? How often do I see, and how often can I cast, the spells I need to make the build work the way I think it should?
In a sense, this mimics the playtest processes we've seen described for Wizards R&D, where they scribble new text on blank cards and modify how cards work as they go along. My version lets me fluidly swap cards in and out much, much faster than I can manage to dig them out of my collection. I'd argue against this approach for actual pre-tournament playtesting, as there are some cognitive issues with not having the actual cards in your hands when you're really hammering down how the deck works. But when I'm just trying to figure out if a concept works, it's all about speed and having a fluidity of process that supports fluidity of thought.
I'll delve into that method more at a later date, but the upshot for this week is that I'm about to launch into discussion of a number of deck archetypes, and I don't expect all of them to make it through the coming week. I plan to eventually settle down and discuss two decks – one aggro, one control. In the meantime, though, this is your window into my process of figuring out which of the many, many potential decks in a new Standard will be both fun and successful.
Ascension Control
As we saw last week, I'm quite excited about Luminarch Ascension. This card offers tremendous power as a finisher, power that evokes the efficacy of Decree of Justice in terms of suddenly and perhaps irreversibly turning the game in the favor of the player who hits an active Ascension first. I'm so high on this card that I'm inclined to just jam it randomly into decks of all stripes, but that is both clumsy and unhelpful for the reader, so I'll focus on control builds featuring this fine card.
Ascension Control wants to stick an Ascension or other major threat, then make sure nothing happens until it wins the game. On the plus side, we have a lot of ways to make sure nothing happens on the board at the moment. On the minus side, we have that haymaker problem I mentioned above. If we drag this game out, someone is going to eviscerate use with an Identity Crisis and then [card Baneslayer Angel]Baneslayer[/card] us to death. We'd like to avoid that. Here's one way:
Walker Ascension Control
Walker Ascension Control tries to dodge the haymakers by filling the board with an abundance of card-advantage generating threats. The hope for this build is to ramp into the women ([card Nissa Revane]Nissa[/card] and [card Elspeth, Knight-Errant]Elspeth[/card], that is) while clearing the board as needed with removal. There are seven sweepers, three of which are also game-ending threats, along with an endless supply of either attackers or blockers as needed from both planeswalkers. There's nothing built into the deck that will keep you from losing your hand or hand and graveyard to Sludge and Crisis, respectively, but at the same time this deck tries not to care. No cards in hand? Time to search up another Chosen.
The Walker variant of Ascension Control benefits from a clean mana base. It is harmed somewhat by its inability to directly protect its own Ascensions, which is an issue in an Ascension fight, and an issue generally because the thing has to stay in play for four long damage-free turns.
Here's another take on Ascension Control:
Esper Ascension Control
This is a far more controlling version of Ascension Control, illustrating an alternate approach to the dual issues of avoiding haymakers and winning an Ascension fight. For the former, it packs Cancels (yes, Cancels) and Traumatic Visions. Visions is a carryover from Shards Block Constructed, where it helpfully played a dual role, fixing your mana in the early game and then keeping you from eating an [card Cruel Ultimatum]Ultimatum[/card] or having to fight a [card Broodmate Dragon]Broodmate[/card] in the late game. Its purpose is the same here.
This deck also reflects an area of my personal game development that I'm interested in working on. It packs uncomfortably few win conditions. In thinking about Ascension Control builds this week, I've referred back repeatedly to the Wake decks of Worlds 2003. Daniel Zink's winning build ran two Decree of Justice maindeck, with the ability to wish for a way to recur them once each in the sideboard. This makes me just a little ill, but even with a scant four chances to actually win the game, these decks did tremendously well. Clearly, that's an area of my game to work on, and I think a deck like Esper Ascension with a small but diversified (remember Thought Hemorrhage) set of win conditions is a good way to do so.
[card Iona, Shield of Emeria]Iona[/card] is perhaps a bit fanciful here, but I wanted to give her a try before I ruled her out. The ideal play is to use [card Liliana Vess]Liliana[/card] to tutor up a [card Rise from the Grave]Rise[/card] with Iona in hand, then on the next turn Lily yourself to ditch Iona and Rise her back for the win.
There are entirely reasonable Naya, Jund, and Bant builds of Ascension control as well, but the two builds above reflect the two major ways of approaching this archetype, and these will serve as my launching point for the coming week's analysis.
Vastwood Aggro
As I wrote last week, there was a card in the unofficial spoilers that had me quite excited. When it was formally confirmed on Friday, I was so very tickled, and knew what direction I'd be taking for aggro builds in the near future.
In Extended, [card Gaeas Might]Gaea's Might[/card] and Might of Alara have a dual nature. On one hand, they're "win faster" spells, meant to pump your creatures all out of proportion to the spell's price and smack the opponent for an extra 5, or perhaps 10 damage. On the other hand, they are a "save me" for your creature, letting it live through a poor combat exchange, a Bolt to the head, or a board-clearing Volcanic Fallout. The first role may or may not be worth a slot in your deck, but the second role is tremendous.
Unfortunately, a Giant Growth, even an amplified Giant Growth, won't un-[card Path to Exile]Path[/card] or un-Doom Blade your creature. Given that our creatures are going to spend a lot of time running into these removal options, no amount of +N/+N is going to help us out.
This is why Vines of Vastwood is such an exciting card. At one mana, Vines lets your attacking critter dodge targeted removal, and that alone may well be worth the price of entry. At two mana, it's 80% of a Might with shroud tacked on. Brilliant. When we combine this with the excising of the Kithkin aggro option, this suggests a new breed of high-speed Zoo deck for the upcoming Standard:
Vastwood Aggro (Naya)
Although Vines sparked my interest in this deck, I really should emphasize that I didn't just say "I want to cast Vines!" and run with it – although that can be a perfectly fair way to build a deck. Instead, I saw that the new Standard was moving away from Processions, Cloudgoats, [card Figure of Destiny]Figures[/card], and Faeries, and felt that this meant that an "old school" small-creature-oriented Zoo deck could be remarkably effective.
This deck runs a very, very low curve. There are twelve one-drops, four two-drops, and four three-drops, along with twelve one-mana instants and four more that we'll usually want to cast at two mana. The curve is so low, in fact, that I might want to shave a couple lands off. That, of course, is what testing is for.
We've just come off of a Standard full of decks that deploy tremendously slowly. I think a design like this may be able to slip into that gap and victimize Shards Block influenced decks very effectively for a while. This deck wants to drop a beater on turn one, drop a beater on turn two, attack for a couple of turns, and then come over the top with [card Lightning Bolt]Bolts[/card] and [card Burst Lightning]Bursts[/card] for the win.
I'll leave off here with some food for thought. I can imagine packing Ascensions in the sideboard here for matchups versus control, where you'll easily pick up four turns sans life loss, and can suddenly generate 4/4s at will.
Here's one other approach:
Vastwood Aggro (Jund)
Zendikar brings a fascinating crop of black aggro choices to the table, and those in combination with fetches let us run a Jund take on the Vastwood concept. The basic structure is very similar, with twelve one-drops and eight two-drops. The addition of the [card Viashino Slaughtermaster]Slaughtermaster[/card] depowers the deck up front, but offers the possibility of a massive "Gaea's Might Win" type of swing when we drop a kicked Vines on it and hit for 10. The build is otherwise functionally very, very similar. I've chosen to shave the manabase here a little to explore what that might look like. The main impact seems to be allowing more burn, which isn't bad.
Building your toolbox
There are other designs. Of course there are other designs. The best part of a new set is considering what directions we might want to follow. I have a list here for [card Knight of the Reliquary]Reliquary[/card] Aggro, and I want to see if some variation on Big Red is viable once again, with Chandra Ablaze sliding in at the top of the curve. I'm sure more ideas will appear in the coming weeks.
Practically speaking, we can't build every deck we'd like. This is why I recommend a lot of proxy work in advance, so you don't waste your time and money playtesting a deck with cards you don't need. At the same time, I do have a specific recommendation for making it easy to do a wide range of tinkering without putting yourself out of joint having to hunt down cards. Buy a full common and uncommon playset. I do this with each expansion. I hate having to try and track down specific commons and uncommons, and if you're going to end up getting any amount of use out of the non-rares in a set, you'll find this rapidly becomes the most affordable choice, if you aren't otherwise building up a collection of utility cards (serial drafters are probably fine). Having a full common and uncommon toolbox is like having a workshop stocked with all the standard screws and hex wrenches – it lets you focus on the real guts of the problem, instead of having to work around card availability all the time.
Next week I'll come back with a report on the shakedown cruise experience for these ideas, and some thoughts about how I like to approach this very early stage of development.
24 Comments Leave a comment
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Retail Store Hours
- Mon to Thu: 5:00pm - 10:00pm
Fri: 3:00pm - 11:00pm
Sat to Sun: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Copyright
Nick says: September 29, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Honestly, I have no idea wtf this guy is thinking. Nearly ALL of these lists are absolutely terrible and I would never consider playing any of them.
For serious
Alex says: September 29, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
I’ll quote myself here to emphasize the point of the deck lists:
“I'm about to launch into discussion of a number of deck archetypes, and I don't expect all of them to make it through the coming week.”
inty says: September 29, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
regarding Walker Ascension Control
wouldn’t it be stronger to run g/w borderposts with knight of the white orchid over the borderland ranger + graypelt.
2 cents thanks
Burger King says: September 29, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Not sure what this guy is thinking these decks seems sub par at best
SammyB says: September 29, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Ok, I would like to point out to everybody here that what we have had so far is pretty much only a prerelease. Meta has had about 5 days worth of change so far, so there is no telling which way one is to go. Vampires seems like the obvious choice, but think about LA decks for a second. You are controlling the board, able to play monsters almost every turn, 4 mana untapped, four lands on the field, and LA out as well, a safe passage, harms way, and day of judgement in hand. Congratulations, you just won the game, here’s your prize.
Assuming you have been playing critters evenly with your opponents and the fields are basically tied up come turn 6 (I know, way late, but you just drew your ascension) and you played lands every turn, leading into, say, a 5 v 5 creature standoff, 4 mana untapped, and the rest of the above situation.
Turn 1: opponent plays another creature, trying to tip the balance in his favor, he swings with, say, a wind drake, you harms way the drake into itself, removing their evasion, one counter on LA
Turn 2: you drew land, bloody fantastic, that’s worthless at the moment because you have no landfall. You pass the turn to your opponent, who is looking at your 5 critters untapped, 6 mana untapped, 3 cards in hand, and your LA. He decides to throw down a snapping drake, preparing again to start taking you out.
Turn 3: Another land? your deck must hate you, those two plains in your hand looking pathetic. You play a plains and smile. Congratulations, you just won the game, here is your cookie. Tap 4 lands and play DoJ, wiping all creatures. If you are wondering why you do this, it’s simple. Come turn four, you will have 4 fliers with 4/4 on the field, an easy win game. Your opponent curses his god(s) and everything is wiped. He draws, and assuming he is very lucky, plays… Djinn of Wishes? He uses Djinn’s ability and draws into another snapping drake, playing it.
Turn 4: You draw O-Ring, banishing the Djinn and playing your plains, leaving 5 mana untapped and holding one card in hand, no creatures. Your opponent assumes it’s a combat trick but can’t be sure because you’ve been holding it for a long, long time. He draws on his turn and sighs, swinging with Snapping drake. You safe passage and, starting next turn, begin dropping angels like it’s going out of style.
This is a best case scenario, by far. I highly doubt that NO FORM of enchantment remove or counter would have appeared there, and if it did it would have broken the card wide open. The way to prevent this is by running elspeth or control, keeping the field locked down, then making the spell indestructible.
I do fear in these decks, however, that mono black vampire aggro has not been addressed. We’re talking about vampire decks with 3-4 bloodwitches in them. That’s 3-4 creatures that you would HAVE to splash for to get the deck to work, at least splashing in essence scatters. For deck outlines, these are fantastic, though maybe some protection decks which revolve around Elspeth might be better ideas, decks which would love to have indestructibility and sit there waiting for massive effects to blow up.
Sam
Blind Fremen says: September 29, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Needs more Lotus Cobra “land-finity”
Kamisaki says: September 29, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
I’m not going to comment on the viability of the decks, that’s not even really the point. I will say I don’t think I’ve ever read another article (and hopefully, articles) that goes so in depth into the entire process of designing decks for a new format. For that, I think it’s extremely valuable. Keep this up, and you might quickly become one of my favorite Magic writers.
Oh, and I love the Naya Vastwood deck just because the only rares in the deck are lands
.
Mike says: September 29, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
why all the decklist play all subpar cards? Traumatic Visions? that card is not even playable in constructed.
Jesse says: September 30, 2009 @ 12:25 am
The point of this was to explore ARCHETYPES. Great article, gave me lots of food for thought.
mrgeode13 says: September 30, 2009 @ 12:37 am
Agree with the above. That Naya aggro looks awfully similar to a Nakamura list from a few months ago, and I don’t know that I’m going out on too much of a limb to say that his decks do fairly well.
MattyCakes says: September 30, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Enjoyable article. I like the premise of “deckstorming” (deck bulding + brainstorming) in an unknown environment, and your steps will definately help me refine my process in the coming weeks.
To all the haters, clearly you missed what he was trying to do. These lists are nothing more than a starting point to gauge the relative strength of new cards. Obviously they will go through changes…that’s what playtesting is for. If you really want to see a stellar list, go write down all the things that would be a better use of your time instead of flaming other people who are doing your work for you.
One final comment. When considering an upcoming environment, I think you need to consider the fastest thing that can be done when looking at viable cards. Thinking about what a card can do during key early turns is a great way to eliminate “chaff” from your early lists.
Keep up the good work!
Sucros says: September 30, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Appreciate the thought process from another rogue. And for those complaining about the quality of the decks, the best way to build decks from scratch isn’t to go and build the best deck you can come up with, but rather varying decks trying different styles to see what has potential and building on it.
We learn as much from error as we do from success. For every makeshift mannequin deck, there’s 10 cascade faeries. (cascading into a spellstutter sprite is counterproductive)
Dartarus says: September 30, 2009 @ 9:39 am
I have to say, I really liked this article. To turn a phrase, a lot of writers will simply say “Here is a rod for you to fish with now.” You actually take the time to explain the thought process behind what you’re doing, and the effectiveness of the decklists aside, are trying to say “Here is how you build your new fishing rod.”
So mad props from me, man. I’d rather learn how to build a deck on my own than simply copy someone else’s ideas. (Do note, that does not mean I’m above netdecking if their deck is better than mine. It simply means that I’d like to be able to be the innovator one day instead of one of copy artists.)
CrazyMike says: September 30, 2009 @ 9:44 am
If all you’re looking for is a list of decks to net deck then this guy isn’t for you. Wake up and see that he’s trying to give us the tools we need to design decks for ourselves. You don’t do that by starting with the best net decks. You do that by starting fresh and exploring new concepts.
The tools he’s giving us are some of what we need to take our personal magic skills to a new level.
The Rooster says: September 30, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Ignore the hate. These are people who have obviously not played block and still expect Lorwyn power decks despite the tools not being there. They’ll try to play 5cc for a few months, lose a lot, and then move on to other decks once LSV of Chapin officially say that 5 color decks won’t work in the format. Then they’ll pretend they knew that all along.
Good stuff…at least the first half (I don’t play aggro so I skipped over it). That GW deck really needs some Baneslayers, though, and less Rampant Growth/O-ring
Andy says: September 30, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
I don’t often comment but here goes.
Thanks for a well thought out article on how to begin designing decks for a new standard. As we spend more time with Zendikar, we will find out which cards work by playing them in ‘substandard’ decks. While some of us can tell if a card works just by looking at them, others (like myself) need to play with them a little to see all the nuances the new cardboard brings.
To the ‘net deckers’ commenting on the strength of the offered decks – just sit back and troll while the innovaters work through the new set and develop the new decks. Then, when Alex and the other rogue deck builders come up with the new ‘it’ deck, you can steal it and pat yourself on the back for being such a good Magic player.
Dan says: September 30, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
those decks aren’t bad, what are you guys thinking? by the way, lorwyn and shadowmoar did rotated out, so you can’t possible expect to see what your used too. ya, the naya deck was shaking but the full spoiler has been up for like 3(6 counting gatherer) days.
Chris Young says: September 30, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
I think the first step should be
“Forget what you think you know”
Durning a rotation change is forced on us there is a great book about handling change called “Who Moved My Cheese?” One of the most important concepts within the book is we must always be looking and willing for change. This is where innovation happens its also where survival happens when the environment you thought you were in is suddenly different now.
This article is about the process of using that “forced” change to take the opportunity to get outside of the box a bit. If we develop this kind of mindset even byond the rotation of a block we begin to develop the skills that will allow us to rise out of the masses of those feasting on the current mound of cheese.
Some other thoughts are as follows:
To say 5 color is dead is just plain silly when later in the article they talk about 3 and 5 color decks being played anyway.
Yes 5 color will change but so will many other decks but the archtype is still there. They have been there from the beginning and will always be. The orginal “The Deck” is more reminise of 5 color than it is anything else. The cards they play are what change but the archtypes remain thats why they are called archtypes. Control/Aggro/Burn/Combo/Mill some form of all of these will be around in one fashion or another. Some will be better some will be worse but they are here to stay so prepare for them.
There was no mention of a return of Goblins as many many people will try it and when the bulk of the field plays a particular deck it gets results just through seer numbers. Your deck needs to be prepared to handle those fanatical devotees to deck X as well.
The article is good for those who cant seem to grasp the concept that change (even without the rotation) is something we should always be thinking about. If you want to make change work for you then you need to be thinking change long before anyone else. Being 2-3 weeks behind the innovation curve will just leave you in the wake of those who are riding it.
Alex says: September 30, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Thanks for all the excellent comments. I’m glad you’re enjoying the column so far. Here are some specific replies:
@inty – That’s an excellent idea, certainly worth testing. I’m definitely becoming less fond of the Refuges as I test them, so they may be on the way out whether or not I pick up the Orchid engine.
@SammyB – I’m discovering when Ascension is or isn’t good, and I’ll definitely be talking about that next week.
@Blind Fremen – I’m somewhat underwhelmed by the Cobra in testing so far (well, to be honest, I’m about as whelmed as I expected, as it’s a good but not superlative card).
@The Rooster – Yeah, I’m never happy putting O-Ring in a deck, honestly. At least it’s playable now that we’re not playing around Cryptics. Why no love for the Rampant Growths?
@Chris Young – Excellent comment. I definitely overlooked Goblins as a standalone archetype, and I’ll spend some time next week covering how testing (quickly) informs us about parts of the environment we missed in our initial assessment.
Kyle says: September 30, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
it is possible to build decks to inspire new archtypes and ways to build decks in a new format without playing bad cards. I understand the deckbuilding content was the focus of the article, but including arkhasan squire, cancel, rise from the grave, bloodbraidless naya decks, and viashino slaughtermasters is not necessary.
Alex says: September 30, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
I was curious if Slaughtermaster could be good or not; I’m currently leaning heavily toward not. However, Squire is basically filling the Isamaru role and doing it well – the question is really whether that’s a good role to fill in the current Standard.
More on that next week.
Thanks to all for the comments.
Trackback MTGBattlefield says: October 1, 2009 @ 5:47 am
In Development – Developing a Context…
Your story has been summoned to the battlefield – Trackback from MTGBattlefield…
The Rooster says: October 1, 2009 @ 6:17 am
The reason I dislike Rampant here is that it doesn’t do anything for the deck aside from the occasional excelling into 4 mana on 3, which you shouldn’t need. You’re not running anything vital to get out early nor are you running landfall. Borderland gives you fixing + a body for blocking, but you really play him to consistently hit your land drops, which is fine.
Rampant is really a dead draw here past 7 lands, and in a deck that could be running so many more relevant options (Quasali Pridemage for the wave of enchants bound to be in the next set, Path, Baneslayer).
If you’re determined to get some mana from your two spot, play Posts and Knight of the White Orchid or Steward of Valeron.
Otherwise, I would recommend Pridemage or Scepter of Dominance. Pridemage gives you some early pressure vs other control decks and a blocker vs aggro. In addition, he helps your O-Rings hit threats because he can take care of landfall enchants. And scepter is obvious.
Looking forward to your testing results.
Pingback In Development - Red Teaming | ChannelFireball.com says: October 6, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
[...] week, I laid out my understanding of the new Standard, which I distilled down to "cascade, black, vampires, and big spells." To address this proposed [...]