Hey painter players!
I am really happy to play mono red painter for an open legacy this weekend and make top 8!
I saw 3 painter players this weekend, one grixis painter, a great RB painter list! and my mono red painter list (was a test list).
my test list was that :
4 Grindstone
4 Imperial Recruiter
2 Lotus Petal
4 Painter's Servant
4 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
4 Simian Spirit Guide
2 Smuggler's Copter
2 Bridge
3 Chandra torch
1 chrom mox
2 Phyrexian Revoker
2 magus of the moon
4 blood moon
2 welder
4 tomb
4 city of traitors
1 great furnace
9 mountain
In Sideboard
2 jitte
3 fiery
1 bridge
3 thorn
1 trinisphere
3 tormod's
1 Reb
1 Pyroclasm
R1 vs Grixis 2-1
G1 : My opponent make a missplay, he know my hand with probe and he didn't keep a mana to find an anwser with branstorm then i combo it t2
G2 : I never find a third mana source then i lost
G3 : I play turn 2 moon then enjoy jitte on the board, i took for on Grindstone T1 + extraction
R2 vs Death and taxe 2-1
G1 : I locked with only 2 mana and one petal lost the game
G2 : moon t2 when i saw my opponent play wast t1 then win with coptere + jitte
G3 : moon T1 win with Chandra and jitte on my creature
R3 vs elve really hard match up 1-2
G1 : Lost by reclamation sage anyway
G2 : win by moon t1 and my opponent has only feitch
G3 : I never find grindstone and he kill me, i never find any sideboard card.
R4 vs RUG 0-2 was totally unlucky
G1 : Mulligan 5 but not a good hand, i have some mana, lost by delver
G2 : Nice hand but i was lock with only one red source (chrome mox on recruiter), after 7-8 round my opponent find grude + 3 bolt
R5 vs 4C controle 2-0
G1 : win wtih T1 moon
G2 : win with T2 Trinisphere, my opponent have only 2 land and 2 deathrite, then i put blood moon then i just have to play for the win....
I make top 8 with the 7 position after 5 round
Quarter final vs RB painter!
G1 : i have a fast hand combo T1 painter, painter play welder then moon t2, i put a 2nd sol land then t3 combo
G2 : i was losing but my opponent swap my Grindstone with painter then i just activate my grindstone, i think my opponent was tired he conceded the game
semi-final vs Dredge lost 1-2
G1 : win with an explosive hand fast combo t2
G2 : Lost by 10 zombie token T1 and i took 3 cabal therapy
G3 : I had an explosive combo hand but he find the solution to dredge 24 cards on his turn 2 and he won.
My list was not completed i know but the deck is really good!
I hope the RB painter play will make his report because his list is really nice!
Birmingham i am coming
Last edited by Cyanhur; 03-26-2018 at 09:32 AM.
@pettdan I'm not sure I quite follow your point about Magus and Blood Sun not interacting well. I mean, I get that Magus provides mana from fetches that would otherwise be dead under a Blood Sun, but that interaction is the same between Blood Moon and Sun. Since Blood Moon is the strongest lock piece, we should definitely be playing that. I do agree that Magus can be a bit fragile, though. Still, it's a high impact card that requires one of only four main-deck answers in decks like Grixis Delver. None of this is to say that I think Blood Sun isn't worth testing! I look forward to hearing more about how your testing goes.
@NormalGuy Seems like you had a decent run, getting a bit unlucky at crucial moments. Hearth Kami is an interesting one! I think it's a toss-up between wanting the cheapest possible answer and having something like Manic Vandal that adds a body to the board (and is also recruitable). How did you find RiP-Helm out of the board? In my experience it has been a little suspect, because RiP can be too slow against graveyard decks like BR Reanimator and Helm is answered by all the same sideboard cards that answer the main combo, although of course you can try and hold it in hand until you can activate in the same turn. Finding space for one more land seems fair, too, although I don't know about 61 cards. With the high volume of tutors it's probably acceptable, as you say.
@Cyanhur Congrats on the finish! List looks good to me, much like the mono-red list I played recently. I like the addition of a Chrome Mox over a Petal—the deck often wants to play three- and four-drops on consecutive early turns, which can be awkward with one-shot mana. Elves I think is a reasonable match-up, you just need to prioritise answering Wirewood Symbiote and Rec Sage with your blasts and hide behind a bridge against Craterhoof. That said, I favour playing with more copies of Pyroclasm, which I use early and aggressively. How were you sideboarding?
The first part of a three-part article series I've written about Painter, specifically my Mono-Blue list featuring Chalice of the Void, has just gone up on The Library at Pendrell Vale. It's a short history of (recent) Painter decks and talks about why I designed the deck to include Chalice in first place. I'd love to hear people's thoughts and hope I haven't made too many egregious mistakes in the history section. Check it out below if you're interested!
https://thelibraryatpendrellvale.com...dern-painting/
Parts 2 and 3 will be out over the course of the week, which go much deeper into the card choices in the deck and the sideboard. Stay tuned!
I side in Jitte, pyroclasm, fierry conflu, bridge and trinisphere / side out 3 Chandra 2 magus 1 welder 2 REBOriginally Posted by jasper
Not sure if it's the best choice. I did not play the list since a long time. I just love the deck
The other painter deck with RB, he did the 8 round tornament saturday and he finished with 5-3 and at the open he did 3-1-1 after the five round.
Gratz for the result!I side in Jitte, pyroclasm, fierry conflu, bridge and trinisphere / side out 3 Chandra 2 magus 1 welder 2 REB
Not sure if it's the best choice. I did not play the list since a long time. I just love the deck
The other painter deck with RB, he did the 8 round tornament saturday and he finished with 5-3 and at the open he did 3-1-1 after the five round.
Indeed, I did 3-0-1 after 4 rounds (the draw because I get a game loss for being late at round 3 haha), and intentional draw for top 8.
I played the exact same list i posted several weeks ago, see here:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...=1#post1037668
If I had to change something, i would cut the magus for someting else (probably the 4th recruiter, or second phyrexian, or a one-of simian spirit guide), but otherwise the list is very solid.
___________
Also, I tend to slightly disagree with your outs vs elves. I would have keept rebs and welder to cut more moons effects, especially on the draw. A resolved moon is mostly useless if not landed on turn 1, and it can also sometimes delay your own combo by one turn if you are short in mana. I find welder to be very relevant in the match-up to counter the discard and decays that elves bring from sideboard.
@jasper, I kind of agree with you about RiP/Helm. RiP is obviously good at what it does, but I'm not too sure it's good enough to warrant 5 sideboard slots. I'll probably test out some combination of Faerie McCabre and relic/crypt. Phyrexian Furnace also looks interesting to me because it's recurrable card draw, but it's second ability may just be not good enough. Faerie is recruitable and even if your opponent knows it's in hand it might be threatening enough give you time to find a way to win. Surgical is also an option.
Another thing I'm considering is whether we really want 4 blood moon. In my experience, a lot of decks will fetch up basics as soon as they see mountains, and DRS also makes it not so good. I'm going to try out a 1 moon 1 magus split and have it there as a tutor target rather than a primary game plan, freeing up 2 slots.
With one of those 2 free slots I'm going to bring in a 3rd lavamancer, and a vexxing shusher as my G1 creature based anti-chalice tech.
Yeah, sorry, it wasn't very well explained. I was trying to avoid writing a wall of text.
What I meant is, in an average game (whatever that is), your opponent will be able to fetch 1-2 times before you land the Moon or Magus. If he or she fetched for basics, your opponent is now limited to two colored mana sources in play. If you play Blood Sun, your opponent's future fetch lands will turn into dead cards. If you instead play a Blood Moon, your opponent's future fetch lands will turn into colorless mana sources. Many decks can operate efficiently on two colored and a couple of colorless mana sources, but with the Blood Sun you restrict your opponent's access to the colorless mana sources. Few decks can operate efficiently on only two colored mana sources (and the duals they draw into). So if you have played a Blood Sun, effectively limiting your opponent's access to total amount of mana sources, following up with a Magus of the Moon will now give your opponent access to colorless mana from the fetch lands which means that the Magus has negated the advantage you had from the Blood Sun.
Edit: not sure if this addresses your question.
Looking forward to reading your motivation of Chalice in blue painter, it seems very interesting as a mana source for Whir and protection for painter, and a very efficient lock piece.
You absolutely want 4 blood moons in your maindeck. Overall decks have less ways of dealing with resolved blood moon than a magus of the moon. Also with the way the metagame is developing blood moon is very good minus some niche decks like Miracle.
I think that one of the biggest problems that this deck has is that it's often viewed as a prison combo deck just like lands. You're not really a prison deck, we only play 4-5 moons at most, 1-2 bridges and actively do any prisoning outside of that. Your prison pieces are basically just resource denial, kind of the same as discard from storm. They're effectively just buying you time to find and assemble your combo.
I don't think Phyrexian Furnace really does anything. It's not card advantage because you lose an artifact every time, it's really slow, and it doesn't do a particularly good job of being graveyard hate either. That said, it's a card I've never seen before, so that's pretty cool.
Faerie Macabre is a solid option, but the idea of recruiting for it stands in a certain degree of tension with the fact that it's at its best on turn 1 on the draw, where you wouldn't be able to play Crypt or Relic. It also doesn't help against Eldrazi Titans out of Sneak and Show, or against decks like Dredge. It also fares worse than permanent-based graveyard hate against discard. Similar things are true of Surgical Extraction, although it does a slightly better job than Faerie Macabre in most scenarios with the downside of not being recruitable.
I tend to prefer Tormod's Crypt over Relic because it interferes less with your game plan and is much less mana intensive. This is an advantage against Chancellor out of RB Reaninator and means you don't have to burn fast mana to be able to activate it on their turn 1 (if you're on the play) or turn 2 (if you're on the draw). It doesn't slow down your combo at all, unlike Relic, and against the decks which are very soft to graveyard hate, not drawing a card is less bad because they have a much harder time coming back from disruption.
The idea of cutting Blood Moons seems very strange to me, because at heart Shortcake/Imperial Painter are combo-stompy decks. That is to say that Blood Moon is a huge part of what makes the deck tick and gives you so much game against decks like Grixis Delver, BUG Delver, Czech Pile and Eldrazi (four of the seven 'decks to beat' here on the Source), as well as decks like Lands and TurboDepths, which are big players in the format. Making a turn 1 moon often literally wins the game if they don't have Force of Will.
Regarding blood moon, I might be wrong and 4 might be the right number. But I would argue that blood moon is most powerful if it comes down T1 on the play, and in 3 of those 4 decks listed you risk running straight into FoW. T1 on the draw you let them fetch up a basic and now you also risk running into daze and spell pierce. If you wait until you have pyroblast backup to cast it then they will have fetched out enough basics that blood moon doesn't matter much anymore.
Basically, just the threat of a possible blood moon can have the same effect as actually casting a blood moon in that your opponent will fetch out basics early just in case, and if they don't then you can tutor up your 1 copy and hose them anyways.
I think copter and lavaman are actually more effective to fight deliver/pile decks than blood moon. I can't really speak to the eldrazi matchup as I haven't played against it yet with shortcake, but in my matches against it as dragon stompy I suspect painter and bridge will pick up the slack.
It's nice to see this little deck having some life.
@Normalguy, funny running into you in NYC. I am happy you are having fun with the list. I have had many talks about the issue with Chalic and in general artifact hate with the current meta. I was in the same event going 1-3, seeing 3 chalice set at one during the event. It is just a beating game one, and with the current list we are really hurting game 1. However I did find that those lists, along with when early Revokers hit Grindstone I often had time to get an answer, just with bad answers in the main. 2 games would have been won if I had maindeck artifact hate that was tutorable by Recruiter. It is with this in mind that I want to move the EE to the board and add the Heretic to the main. I know people want an immediate response to destroy the artifact but I really think versatility needs to take center stage. Yes Heretic is a dog to Jitte, but in most cases I think the reach he gives is what the deck needs in a flex spot. The current list is really tight right now with basically 3 flex spots so we need to get a ton of mileage from them. I would caution against dropping the moon count. As you stated it is best on the play, first turn. As such you need to maximize the chances for that which requires 4 copies. Copter mitigates the redundancy later in the game. Usually a Fow on Moon is ok, as long as you didnt go all in with a City of Traitors.
There is also the idea that game one turn two is viable also as most decks don't play around it. So while conventional wisdom says it is best to drop right away I have found myself feeling shit out first. A first turn Lavaman or Welder will often times draw a removal, which opens the door turn 2, or on the off chance they drop DRS, then the Lavaman deals with the shamen and Moon just blanks them. BUG, Grixis, some Miracles, Eldrazi, and Elves are really hurt by moon effects, even on turn two. I do agree that the deck should have 3 Welder/2 Lavaman, with the third Lavaman in the board.
I will be testing a couple other things in the board. I have thought that a tutorable removal spell is also something we may want. As such Walking Ballista is a card we should consider as a singleton.
With respect to RiP, I really do think it is the best available. Yes you do have a weakness to BR reanimator, but you probably have lost game one anyway. With that in mind, RiP is as good as any other hate on the play. Game three you are on the draw which is a tough spot regardless. The Faerie is the only card to save you here, yet the board is fairly tight and it does less than nothing against dredge. Tormod's crypt without SDT also is not terribly strong against the blue reanimator shells. There is marginal cost to running 5 cards that allow our combo deck to win through another route. That is a critical part of adding precious points in match ups suck as Dredge, reanimator, Lands, Burn, and Miracles lists. The fact that the combo doesn't die to traditional hate that is played against us is huge.
@Blood Sun- It really has no place in this deck. If you look at the DTB section, operating on 2 colors of mana will still let most decks just steam roll you. Allowing duals to tap for the correct mana is just fucking crippling. Yes it can stop fetches but Blood Moon does that in spades. It is far better to shut off their colors and give them 5 red mana then it is to give them two duals and 3 blanks. Delver lists, elves, Eldrazi, and Miracles will gladly take that every time.
@Jasper- Nice first article although I do have to take issue with a large portion of the history of the deck. From the deck list posted (only running 3 Recruiters is always wrong) to the idea that transition of mono red to a more Dragon Stompy bend with more fast mana is also wrong. Those list look for more mana of a stable variety which allows them to lean on 4 drops. Imperial Painter and Shortcake are build around the 3 drop slot. This is a hug distinction which dictates the mana base construction along with the card choices. If you could you should use the Shortcake list that top 8 a GP or major event. And while the red blast as a vindicate was a critical feature of the early deck lists, within the past 4-5 years there has been a trend to actually call black 50% of the time, making it more of a counterspell, and situational removal, vs the maximization of Vindicates to gain board advantage and tempo, which was a critical part of Hollywood's early lists, but abandoned when the Figure of Destiny count was dropped below 3.
Seth
…no matter how much you think you love somebody, you’ll step back when the pool of their blood edges up too close.
have you considered Leyline + Helm combo after sb?
Not really. Leaving aside the fact that i don't like the helm combo, why would I need an alternative win condition when I already have a very serious beatdown plan with copters ? In addition, playing with 4 copies of welder makes harder for the opponent to cast surgical on painter/grindstone. Maybe I'm wrong, but I never felt the need for such alternative combo in the sideboard, over >6 months of playtest.
Another point is that my only black sources are 1 badland, 1 swamp and 4 petals, which means that a lacking leyline in starting hand is very very bad.
Would be interested by a feedback if you try it anyway :)
Of course! i will say you my feedback as soon as possible with mtgo and some IRL tornament.
thanks - fair points. might try it at some point (still putting together mono r version). I think having so many Welders just screams for at least one Gamble.
@NormalGuy I agree with Seth—dropping the moon count makes you much less likely to be able to turn 1 a moon. Your reasoning that you risk running into FoW doesn't really add up—yes, if they have FoW, you don't get to play the moon. The point is that you're making them have it, because if they don't, they straight up lose. This is what it means to play extremely powerful proactive cards. Combine this with the fact that you're not actually that far behind if they FoW your moon (it's a 2 for 2 assuming that you used one piece of fast mana and a sol land) and the fact that in some matchups, you will literally win the game, and I think cutting moons is to be avoided.
I also disagree that Lavaman and Copter are better against Grixis Delver and Czech Pile than Blood Moon. They're both good cards in the matchup, sure, but neither of them outright win (or come very close to winning) the game like Blood Moon. Grixis Delver has no basics at all, and even in the scenario where they get to play a turn one DRS, they'll only get one, maybe two activations out of it. Czech Pile lists sometimes have space for a couple of basics, but they also have extremely demanding mana requirements and being restricted to, say, only one swamp OR one island and a bunch of nonbasics leaves them unable to cast many of their spells. Additionally, the decks play many fewer answers to Blood Moon than to Lavaman and Copter.
@pettdan I see what you mean about the interaction between Blood Sun and a moon effect, but I'm still struggling to understand how Magus of the Moon is different to Blood Moon in this instance? Unless you're relying solely on Blood Sun, Blood Moon has the same issues as Magus. With both Moon and Magus, you also have the option of not playing them out if you have a Blood Sun in play.
@CptHaddock I think the question of viewing this as a prison-combo deck is more one of semantics, really, but I see what you mean about a possible incorrect assumption about the roles the deck can play. We're not trying to lock the opponent out of the game completely in many scenarios, as you say, just trying to buy enough time to win by disrupting their game plan. Other decks in legacy, like Eldrazi and Dragon Stompy, are operating on similar lines, which is why they both try and play fast clocks. The 'lock' pieces are too fragile to rely on if you let the game go long, but they do make it very difficult for decks to beat you in the short term, during which time you try to press your advantage. For these reasons, I would term Imperial Painter/Shortcake a combo-stompy deck (arguably something different to a prison-combo deck).
@Seth I don't think Heretic being a dog to Jitte is particularly problematic—there are so few decks that run Jitte, and Jitte is not the kind of artifact that we have a habit of losing to anyway. Blasts take care of it, too. I do think, though, that the fact that it takes a turn to come online is a problem. It's not only about having a response to Chalice as quick as possible, it's about how easy your answer to Chalice is to answer. If you're taking several turns to recruit for a Heretic and then your Heretic gets removed before you can activate it, you're likely going to lose. Chalice decks also tend to put you on a quick clock, where waiting one or more turns (if you can't play the Heretic as soon as you've recruited for it) could be the difference between winning and losing.
Also, are you still running Jaya? I think she fills a similar role to Heretic in some ways, while being more flexible and having a higher ceiling for power-level.
All of that said, I think that having some way of dealing with Chalice in the main deck is important, and if it's recruitable, that's even better. Heretic might be what the deck wants, but I'd still be wary of losing access to EE in the main deck because of its flexibility and power against many more decks than straight-up artifact removal. The fact that in a pinch, Heretic can at least crew the Copter makes the fail-case a little less bad.
Regarding RiP, I've outlined why I think that it's important to consider the mana intensity of graveyard hate against a deck like BR Reanimator. You will struggle to play out a RiP on turn 1 in some number of situations in which you wouldn't have had the same issue with Crypt. I would also dispute that you have 'probably' lost game one, and I don't think that it forms a particularly good basis for analysis in any case. RiP also makes your opening hands clunkier—hands that you could have kept with, say, a Crypt (because it will buy you lots of time and you will always be able to cast it) but only non-white mana, or only one land and some Spirit Guides, you probably have to mulligan with a RiP.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about 'Tormod's Crypt without SDT' against blue reanimator builds—what does SDT have to do with it? It's also worth noting that blue reanimator builds are few and far between these days.
I don't think it's fair to say that running 5 cards is a 'marginal cost'—that's a third of your sideboard, and a not insignificant part of the maindeck when you do bring it in. Looking at the lists you say it adds percentage points against, I don't see why you would be siding in RiP-Helm against Burn or Miracles. Against Lands the difference between RiP and Crypt is relatively marginal because you're aiming to Blood Moon them anyway. Yes, RiP is probably a bit better against Dredge, but there isn't much dredge about and again, you're looking to disrupt and then combo before they can get out from under the disruption rather than lock them out completely.
I also don't see how the combo doesn't die to traditional hate that is played against us. Cards like Krosan Grip, Reclamation Sage, Wear // Tear and Abrupt Decay all disrupt the RiP-Helm combo just as well as they disrupt the Painter-Grindstone combo.
Thanks for having a look at the article! I appreciate the feedback. With respect for your knowledge of and experience with the deck, I'd be curious as to what forms the basis for your claim that 'only running 3 Recruiters is always wrong'. While I agree that it would have been nice to use a list from a major event, the last time that Shortcake top 8'd any major event was when LeJay top 8'd GP Paris in 2014. I decided to prioritise having a more recent list instead, to better reflect the 'final' stage of innovation the deck had reached up until the ban. For example, as we recently discussed on this thread, 4 tops was likely optimal, and yet many lists were still only on three.
It's also worth noting that the list posted, although not from a major event, is very similar to lists that pinkfrosting was regularly 5-0'ing legacy leagues with (hence the credit in the article), with a few small tweaks. One of those tweaks was actually to add a third Recruiter (my personal choice at the time as far as I remember), because the very last SDT list ever to go 5-0 (on the 23rd of April 2017, the day of the ban) was only running 2. This in itself throws into question your statement that running any less than 4 Recruiters is by definition wrong. I would be wary this kind of 'sacred cow'-ism when it comes to elements of the list—which isn't to say I wouldn't love to hear why you think the deck should have been running four.
I also have to take issue with your claim that Dragon Stompy and Imperial Painter are fundamentally different on the basis of three- and four-drops. It simply isn't true that Dragon Stompy is a deck founded on four-drops. The deck runs as many as 14 three-mana lock pieces and the deck is designed to play one of them on turn 1, with 8 sol lands and 8 pieces of fast mana. It also often runs a three mana threat in the form of Goblin Rabblemaster, taking the number of three drops up to 18 (not counting SSG), in contrast to only 11 four-drops, none of which are lock pieces. The idea that Dragon Stompy is looking for 'more stable mana' is also curious given that the deck runs the full four SSG and the full four City of Traitors. Yes, Chrome Mox is a more permanent than Lotus Petal, but if we look at recent Imperial Painter lists, some of them have been including a copy of Chrome Mox too.
The mana base of Dragon Stompy is therefore extremely similar to that of Imperial Painter: both play 4 Ancient Tomb, 4 City of Traitors, 11 lands that tap for red and 4 SSG, with the only difference being in 4 Chrome Mox vs 2 Lotus Petal + 1 Chrome Mox. The reason that I would describe this as a move towards more fast mana on the part of Imperial Painter is that old Imperial Painter lists only ran 5 sources of fast mana (usually 3 Petal, 2 SSG) and 3 City of Traitors—see, for example, Momme Gruppe's GP Prague Top 16 list.
Regarding blast effects and vindicate, I think the claim that one was naming black 50% of the time towards the end of the SDT era is simply false. There is (almost) no reason to have ever named anything other than blue in a pre-boarded game, and no reason to have named black unless the opponent was bringing in Pyroblasts from the sideboard. Even in a good percentage of those games, it was still correct to name blue because your blasts outnumbered theirs. Of course, if naming blue meant it was possible for them to disrupt the combo but they wouldn't be able to otherwise, and you didn't have a blast of your own, then you would name black. (Snuff Out saw almost no play, even then.) But other than that, the utility of turning your blast into an unconditional counter and removal vastly outweighs every other consideration.
You may be misunderstanding my statements about turning blasts into vindicates as implying that I would have advocated aggressively going after lands with blasts. This is not what I meant (and also not the only purpose of Vindicate)—the ability to blow up problematic permanents, including needles and threats like Gurmag Angler is crucial. Blasts as unconditional removal, as well as an unconditional counter against even non-blue decks, was and is a vital part of the archetype.
@Jasper- I meant no disrespect in my comments, just trying to add a little more information to the history as I was there for all of it. The article was interesting and I understand the choice in deck selection. I do not think 5-0 a league is indicative of strong success. With this in mind cutting back on a tutor that finds your combo, finds your Welder, or various hate piece is wrong both in a vacuum and practice. To the best of my knowledge, no Painter list without 4 Recruiters ever did well at a major event or in a larger sized well developed meta. He is essentially a 2 mana tutor( ie two lands, sol land and mountain) that leaves behind a body, and basically defines what threats and answers we play. As such he should always be a 4 of in Imperial Painter, and Shortcake lists I will try and explain each point as best I can:
1. Rip/Helm- The marginal cost is in running the Helm. The 4 grave hate are required. The marginal cost of one card is relatively low, especially when that one card allows easier victory against Burn, Show and Tell variants, Dredge, and Reanimator variants. The issue with crypt is that without SDT, it is much harder to get continued value from it. Most reanimator lists can reload relatively quickly after the first attempt to get a fattie in play. As such you often need to play multiple hate pieces in a game if they are of the single use variety. SDT and Welder tricks allowed this far more easily than is available in current lists. My thoughts to RB reanimator is that you are unfavored game one as a first turn monster on the play is fairly easy for them. Game one is rough, so you will often be on the play game two and draw game three if it goes that long. I could buy that Surgical or the Faerie interact well in this situatioan, but otherwise you need to be luck enough to get a turn. While I will agree that Crypt is easier to cast, RiP just shuts them down. The issue is as you mentioned, spots are tight in the board. While maybe not being the best card in the BR reanimator match up, it is incredible in the Lands, Dredge, and Ux variants of Reanimator which is why it makes the cut. Since we need some form of grave hate that isnt Faerie to fight Show and Tell list, RiP also serves a great role there. With this in mind, Helm is an easy inclusion for an oops I win sometimes card. And while yes Grip can hit the pieces, most of the time people bring in artifact removal, Revokers on Grindstone, or additional creature hate against us (and sometimes grave hate, which always seemed funny to me). Helm should never be played really unless you are activating it to reduce the chance of them blowing it up.
2. Dragonstompy- Imperial Painter is different from every stompy list in terms of mana base construction. While early lists used Chrome Mox to increase the permanent sources of red mana, that has fallen away to allow for more explosive lines while giving increased access to red and white mana. Dragon stompy uses chrome mox to ensure consistent red mana. And while Painter and Stompy use 3 mana cost spells, if you look at the high end, you can see that they typically need 4 mana to close out games. The goblin aside, which I think is falling out of favor, the game winning spells in Dragon Stompy are 4 mana powerhouses. We run none of them, and work perfectly fine on just 3. Also Painter uses Bridge in a far different manner, for us it is a fail safe from big monsters. Dragon Stompy looks to stop the combat phase and hide behind it while gaining immense value from Chandra and Conflux spells. I think this is why some of the mono red lists that went heavy on Bridges and planeswalkers failed. Ypu need to be able to reliably empty your hand to ensure your Planeswalkers are safe. For Painter we dont care and as a result need less permanent mana, trading that for correct colors and speed. This is why the Painter mana base is different than other stompy shells. It is from this basis that I mentioned earlier mono red lists have tended more towards a construction of Dragon stompy bc they incorporated its end game within a Painter shell. As such they should be working to ensure consistent 4 mana come turn 3 every game for success, just like Dragon stompy does. Painter was never designed for this, even though we have at times tried to fit 4 mana spells in the deck, due to their perceived ceilings.
3. The Red blast as a Vindicate isnt necessarily wrong. I just think it is inaccurate with the way the deck currently operates. Ever since the printing of abrupt decay at least, the idea of using a blast as a vindicate is less strong and in general inferior to using it as spot removal and counter spell. While technically this is what you said, I think from a lay person who has not played the deck associating the card with a sorcery speed removal is problematic as its use is far from that anymore. In the earliest list, 8 blasts were used and the format in general was slower and the ability to blow shit up was huge. Now, especially with the loss of the ability to float a blast with SDT, the tactical use of the card has changed. So yes you do use it to target remove permanents, but it is far more selective in its use and often times its best use is in countering a Ponder or Brainstorm, or functioning as a pseudo bolt and killing a Delver and Jace. Its never unconditional which I think is key. Its upside is of that of an instant speed Vindicate, but its floor is that of a solid tempo even or better counter spell. And I think that is the part we need to focus on, especially for players who are less experienced with the deck. I just know the average magic card player is bad, myself included, and they probably miss the complexity that are hidden in your word economy.
4. Naming black-This really caught steam with the rise of Team America in the Northern VA/DC/Maryland area. As the format changed I noticed that I frequently was not calling blue, and instead calling black for the marginal gains in that match up. Over time blue shells continued to increase in the meta. Now it is reasonable to think that 50% of what you play against will be a blue shell of some sort. Unless you have a blast in hand, it is basically never correct to call blue in that match up. The reason is that allowing increased ability to FoW is really bad for a combo deck. Currently you don't mind when they FoW bc they are pitching their best cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, Delver, and Jace. If you sequence your plays correctly, you have sufficient redundancies to combat the counter spell and the card disadvantage can play in your favor. However that changes dramatically if they are able to pitch cards like lands, creatures or situational instants. In this situation you lose the card advantage you previously would have gained. It is with this in mind that over the past 3 years at least black has continued to be the color named more and more frequently.
5. Sideboarding- Lands has continued to become stronger and stronger to Moon effects. Currently it is a sock lock in that match up due to moxes and Tireless Tracker. As such shutting down the Loam engine is critical. But in the end, you really just want to assemble a combo as fast as possible as you can no longer dick around with the modern lands lists. RiP does shut down Snapcaster which can be enormous, but I agree you usually dont board it in against them, although if Jim Davis's list catches fire that will probably change. Against Burn the RiP/Helm is a way to win in which they can not interact with. Burn is a nightmare match up but it does offer some pathways to victory which is really nice. Basically we need to construct a board with overlapping hate. RiP does that a little better than most while giving us a few percentage points against our worst match ups, Burn and Show and Tell. This is really important bc it allows us to have things like Pyroclams that otherwise would be cut from the board.
Jaya is in the board and I think that is right. I only mentioned Heretic being a dog to Jitte bc I wanted to acknowledge his downside. The slowness is an issue I will admit, but outside of Eldrazi going Chalice-Thoughtknot- thought knot, you should be ok, although some starts of Eldrazi on the play are nearly impossible for us to beat. His ease of casting off a sol land and not requiring Painter is why I feel he is better suited for the deck than Jaya in the main.
Seth
…no matter how much you think you love somebody, you’ll step back when the pool of their blood edges up too close.
Also I want to address the SDT issue. Yes I think 4 was the correct number and we never used it. The issue was that 3 was a long time hold over from previous lists that ran less fetches and emerged from a meta where first turn Goblin Lackey was a very real and scary play. When I was pushing Shortcake back in late 2011/early 2012 I know I had just ported over the 3 SDT was I added the E tutor and fetches to the list. To be fair I never went on to test more within that shell as I took previous testing and just went forward. The card advantage and redundancy and consistency the card provided was so strong once the meta shifted that it was clearly wrong not to use more. However, while I was wrong here, the community at large also really missed this. But I think this only reaffirms why 4 Recruiters are needed. The add consistency, card selection, and redundancy to the deck at a level red otherwise has no business having.
Seth
…no matter how much you think you love somebody, you’ll step back when the pool of their blood edges up too close.
@Seth Totally get that you were just trying to add some more historical perspective—as I said, much respect for the fact that you were there all along.
I agree that an isolated 5-0 league is not indicative of strong success, but I do think that a list that regularly 5-0s is reasonably trustworthy. By pinkfrosting's own account (and the sporadically published data that we have points towards this being true), that is what his list was achieving. The unfortunate thing about Painter is that we just don't have very much data at all because of the relatively small playerbase of the deck, so it is difficult to know for certain what is the 'optimal' build.
I also agree that Imperial Recruiter is a powerful card—it does a lot for the deck. That doesn't mean that 4 was the de facto right number of the card for the deck at the time, and I think the relative success of builds featuring only 2 or 3 recruiters (pre SDT ban) points to the possibility of other builds. The thing is that no Shortcake list with 4 Recruiters top 8'd a major event for the three years after LeJay finished in the top 8 of GP Paris 2014. I'm not sure if this is what you were implying, but I wouldn't describe the MTGO meta as 'undeveloped' per se. At the end of the day, this is somewhat academic because Top is sadly no longer with us. In the post-ban iterations of the deck I would certainly tend towards having all four Recruiters as a default because your card selection is no longer as good as it once was.
1. All reasonable points. RiP-Helm out of Shortcake is certainly better than Leyline-Helm out of other builds because of Enlightened Tutor. I'm still not sure why you differentiate the Ux builds of reanimator from BR reanimator in terms of which hate piece is more effective against them, but RiP is certainly better against Dredge. As for Lands, I think I place less importance than you do on graveyard hate in the matchup. You're still incentivised to win the game as quickly as possible while trying to prevent them from making Marit Lage. Your most important pieces of interaction are Blood Moon and Ensnaring Bridge, with graveyard hate in third, a fair bit below. You don't mind them loaming nearly as much if you have a moon effect in play, which also prevents them from recurring Punishing Fire. Other than that, you should be worried about Tireless Tracker and Marit Lage, which Ensnaring Bridge does a decent job of defending you from.
As far as play patterns with Helm, it should definitely be held in hand until you can activate it in most circumstances. I can certainly see the value provided in matchups like Sneak and Show. That said, the marginal cost in general is not only in running the helm—it's in siding the package in and thereby taking up five slots in the deck, diluting your other plans. In any case, your faith in the RiP-Helm plan leads me to want to test it further. I'm certainly open to it being a powerful strategy for Shortcake, but as you keep saying, we have to make the non-core parts of the deck work as hard as possible, hence my lines of questioning.
2. To be clear, I'm talking about Imperial Painter excluding Shortcake when I say that modern lists have tended more towards Dragon Stompy. The fundamental philosophy of Dragon Stompy as I see it is based on 3-mana lock pieces. Yes, it plays some powerful 4-mana haymakers to end the game, but they are to a certain extent incidental to the foundation of the deck, which aims to make it hard or impossible for the opponent to play magic. In fact, of the 11 four-mana spells in the current flavour of Dragon Stompy, only 6 of them are actually really win conditions—Fiery Confluence and Pia and Kiran are removal and value. This means that the deck is almost balanced between 3- and 4-mana win conditions. I really don't think the difference between mono-red Imperial Painter and Dragon Stompy are as large as you make out. If your argument is that Shortcake and Dragon Stompy are divergent, then I agree with you, but that was never the point I was arguing.
3. Again, I think we probably agree more on this point than is clear from how we're talking about it. When I say that blasts can be used as vindicates, I am talking about using it as spot removal. I take your point about sorcery speed, but I'm not too worried about people forgetting that blast is an instant. I guess I have a little more faith in the average player, but equally I can see how being a little more explicit about complex interactions would be good. That said, the first part is intended more as an overview than a primer. If I were writing a primer on Imperial Painter or Shortcake I would go into much more detail for sure. In fact, the second part of the series is actually a primer on the mono-blue version with what is probably an excessive amount of detail, although of course blasts unfortunately don't get much of a mention.
4. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are situations where naming a non-blue colour is correct. Giving them more opportunities to FoW is not ideal, but the truth is that you play more blasts than they do FoW, and it's also not necessarily the case that there are particularly any cards that they love pitching to FoW that they couldn't have done anyway. If they're pitching creatures, that means they're pitching their threats, of which they don't have many. I certainly wouldn't mind my Grixis Delver opponent pitching a Gurmag Angler. The best pitch for them is still probably Daze, which they can pitch anyway.
Against other blue decks like Sneak and Show, the ability to counter a Sneak Attack with a blast probably outweighs allowing them to pitch random cards to FoW. Of course, this varies from situation to situation—if they only have two cards in hand, and their only out is FoW plus blue card, don't give them a blue card and make them have it naturally. There are lots of corner cases with this, and I think there are no real hard and fast rules. Nevertheless, I in general tend to value enabling one of our most powerful cards over playing around specific situations—FoW lists will usually have a blue card to pitch whether we name blue or not.
5. Again I think we're mostly in agreement about how to approach the Lands matchup, but I would argue that Blood Moon is as or even more effective effective at shutting off the loam engine as RiP. Not because it stops them from casting loam, but because it makes all the lands they're loaming back fairly mediocre. Tireless Tracker can certainly present a clock, but is just as weak against Ensnaring Bridge. As I said above, I just don't think graveyard hate is as important as Blood Moon and Ensnaring Bridge in this matchup.
It's definitely important to maximise the potential value out of each and every sideboard slot. Burn is and always has been a problem for Shortcake, and while it is difficult to interact with for them, I don't know that it really does enough on its own. I also would strongly question the decision to board in RiP against Burn, which does stone-cold nothing without a helm.
You make some good points in favour of Heretic and I look forward to hearing the results of testing. I think Jaya occupies an interesting spot in the deck as a sort-of jack of all trades, master of none. I've recently started playing her in the maindeck of mono-red again and rather liked her, but I kind of wonder when you actually end up siding her in if she's not in the maindeck. As a catchall, I almost feel like she should either be in the maindeck or not in the deck at all, unless there are certain matchups where you feel she is indispensable?
As I say above, while I agree that the consistency, card selection, and redundancy provided by Recruiter now means that we should probably be playing 4, it's not as clear with Top in the mix. In other words, without Top, Recruiter certainly becomes more important.
Posts like this are the reason we will be having a thread split. Confusion as to what build we are discussing and cross posting only adds to the confusion. Seth and I will work on getting it out hopefully this week or next.
Jasper I think you should do more research before making blanket statements about Shortcake's success in large tournaments.
4 Recruiters was and still is the correct number to run. Others might disagree and say they like 3, but I view that as suboptimal. It's like a blue deck running 3 brainstorm.
Strawberry Shortcake
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...erry-Shortcake
What a brainstorm do? Draw card and activate on draw effects fix hand, removing woods
#FreeNedleeds
With respect to blast, I do agree if you have a blast in hand then naming blue is probably correct. Usually you are ok with them pitching already blue cards to FoW as those cards power level is really so high I am happy they do not get to cast him. I would argue that pitching a Gurmag Angler is actually painful to you as a Painter player. Much like Goyf was in years past, it is not really the Angler that kills you. It was the other cards in the sequence that beat you and it could be a hill giant for that matter that deals the death blow. I guess from my perspective I want them pitching Brainstorm, Ponder, Delver, and Jace to the FoW. Daze in an interesting card, but even still I would probably want that also pitched bc mana efficiency is critical and knowing they pitched a Daze means you have one more mana essentially. It may just be due to the fact that we value cards differently and as a result we choose our plan of attack differently. Against FoW decks I assume that one of my first 3 plays will eat a FoW. That is ok, but if they are able to get a second that can be brutal.
@Jasper- the fact that threats are balanced between 3 and 4 mana would mean that mana base construction should be different though. I guess at some point this discussion is really irrelevant but I think it is critical from a deck design stand point. My issue with the trending of mono red Painter going towards Dragon stompy is really two fold:
1. The mana base needs to be different. We can go back and forth on the kill cards and the importance of the cards, but the fact that they run so many four drops is critical. That is why the mana base needs to change. Chrome mox and mountains in general are stronger with that game plan. Mono red painter needs to use that to take full advantage of these cards. The issue there is a general loss of explosiveness, which is not always wrong, just a different line of approach.
2. Mono red lists going to a dragon stompy game plan actually lose the second strongest card in that shell, namely Chalice. Now this is only an outside observer, but usually merging two decks leads to some problems and I caution about this. The strength of Chalice is a large reason why those high end cards are so good in current Legacy.
@ 4 Recruiters- The issue isnt that there may be a better number than 4. Its the fact that no sound reason has been given. I am open to the idea of it so long as a sound reason can be voiced. When people say, "It lets me run a 4th Welder" they are missing the point as if they wanted a fourth a welder there are much weaker cards to cut to fit that Welder in, if that is the deck configuration you want. I only bring up the fact that Recruiter always increases consistency, card selection, and card advantage while leaving behind a body. It is probably in the top 3 cards in the deck in any match up. If there is a compelling argument against this I would love to hear it bc I am open to the fact that the deck is improperly built as is. It is not an ego thing as I am open about the fact that I was so wrong in most respects about SDT in the deck before.
My only issue with a 5-0 league is that leagues in general are a strange place. The quality and variety can be really odd, and so I caution taking too much from them. I think they are great for a testing purpose and to get a sense of strength of the deck, but inferring from decks with question deck choices that go against fundamental magic is suspect. \
But thank you Jasper, you have helped start some very lively debate about theory of the deck.
Seth
Seth
…no matter how much you think you love somebody, you’ll step back when the pool of their blood edges up too close.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote