[Deck] Angel Stompy

[Carney2k4]

Well, dispite this deck having a horrible matchup against Solidarity, after some testing, this deck does great against almost the entire format. I'm starting to test the Moxes, and they're working really well with the Tithes.

How is your testing going with the Moxes, Zilla?

[lynxcat]

Wouldn't Rule of Law be a much better choice than True Believer? As was stated, the Solidarity player can simply find bounce while going off. Rule of Law ensures that they have to find the bounce beforehand. I realize it has less synergy with Mother of Runes, but Rule of Law by itself is much more effective than True Believer.

[Happy Gilmore]

Solidarity's main deck removal is generally in the form of Chain of Vapor, so it really doesn't matter what you are running, permanents are NP for solidarity, especially with wish MD.

[CavernNinja]

I would have to agree with Rule of Law, Arcane Lab is really good in the board against them from a mono blue deck so I could see Rule as being a good card. What I don't like about Rule is the fact that it isn't a threat on its own, however it is considerably better than True Believer so it could be worth it.

[Carlos El Salvador]

Well.. they both have pros and cons, but for this PARtICULER deck, I would be inclined to run the beleiver. Simply because of Mother of Runes giving True Belever pro blue so Solitare couldn't touch him in response to a chain. Good times.

[Zilla]

@ObFreely:
Thanks for the in-depth discussion of the matchup from your perspective. It's appreciated. It's entirely possible that my results have been somewhat different simply because I've been testing against different builds, or those with less knowledge of the deck, but I don't disbelieve your assertions here. Evacuation was never an issue in my testing either as it wasn't in the deck, so Believer with Mom or SoFI backup was a reasonable strategy in my testing. I'll do some more testing againse Deep6er's most recent build and see what I find.

@Carney:
The Moxen have been testing well so far. They up the color consistency some, and don't seem to be any kind of significant hit to overall speed. Bear in mind that I've only had a few hours' worth of testing with them so far, so it's impossible to say for certain, but first impression is that the 3 Mox over 3 Cities routine is a solid plan. Thanks again to Ezrengel, whose suggestion reminded me to test it.

@Rule of Law:
That's a very solid idea. I'll do some testing with that as well; don't know why I hadn't thought of it before.

@Carlos:
I've already pointed out the Mom/Believer strategy. ObFreely has pointed out that some builds are running Evacuate as a Wish target, which means that Mom is a non-issue in that case. You ought to read the thread - there's some good stuff in here.

[Carlos El Salvador]

Well, that means that Solitary is running two bounce spells at least, whcih still means that it's hard for you to put together everything and just win, becuase they can just wish during their main phase, return your Rule of Law, then go crazy at the end of turn. Really you don't accomplish much other than perhaps stalling them by two turns, which could be engouth for lethal damage, but if they run bounce, your screrwed eather way.

[stolen]

Sphere of Resistance? Trinisphere? Glowrider? I can't think of anything else not already mentioned to help vs. Solidarity. Unfortunately none of these actually win the match but maybe they could stall for that vital turn or two? An early Sphere (or either of the other two, which would be more possible in this deck with fast mana than in 3W) also makes Solidarity's early-turn hand-fixing more difficult, so not only will the wish/bounce cost more but it would also be slightly more difficult to get them in hand. Of course, they (except for Glowrider) slow your threats too, so I don't know.

Otherwise, I guess run Believer and hope Solidarity isn't running Evacuation.

[Carney2k4]

I think we should focus more on matches that are alot more winnable, because reserving 4-5 slots for Solidarity seems kinda....pointless. Just take the loss from Solidarity and devote more slots to more played decks. Thats my $.02.

[Zilla]

Just take the loss from Solidarity and devote more slots to more played decks.

You could do this I guess, but Solidarity is one of the few viable decks I've seen that is truly difficult for the deck. Truth be told, it doesn't really need its board for much else, save the Belcher matchup and certain control matchups (depending on the build). Thus, if efforts are going to be concentrated on improving the deck anywhere, it mise well be the matchup it has trouble with. I personally find the suggestions useful.

Overall, I'd ideally like to find a solid answer to Solidarity which is also useful against other matchups, but this may not be possible. In addition to Believer, Rule of Law, 3Sphere, and Sphere of Resistance, I've considered running Chalice as an answer to Solidarity. Set at 1, Chalice can be a very difficult obstacle for it, since it shuts down a lot of draw and of course High Tide and Chain of Vapor. The problem, of course, is that a lot of your own threats are at 1cc as well. Then again, none of them are truly vital to your gameplan against Solidarity (excepting Tithe, maybe), so it might be worth some testing. It has the added benefit of having at least some positive impact in the Belcher matchup as well, set at either 0 or 1. I'll probably give that some testing and see how it works out.

[Erzengel]

Rule of Law plus Armageddon seems to be a pretty viable strategy.

Rule of law can also come down 2nd turn, just like True Believer could, as 2W is not usually problem for this deck to come up with.

Rule of Law also has some splash damage against some of the random agro decks floating around. Simply put, you creature are generally better than theirs, and being able to drop 1 quality threat per turn makes it pretty difficult to race Angels, or Shadow dudes that have been bolstered by nasty equipment.
Not that that would be the best answer for a deck of that sort, just pointing something out.

I think that Chalice is about of equal strength, as it can also bolster various other matches however favorable they might be as of now.

[Happy Gilmore]

I would definetly say that Rule of Law is your best option at this time, although I wonder if there is an enchantment that changes land types for white. That would be much more affective.

would it be rediculous to splash red for boil?

[Zilla]

would it be rediculous to splash red for boil?

When Armageddon serves essentially the same purpose? Yes it would. By turn 3 or 4 (when you're ready to cast Armageddon), you should already have roughly 3 threats on the table, meaning they're on a relatively short clock. The fact that Armageddon wipes out your own lands at that point is irrellevant, because it buys you the time you need to ride your existing threats to victory.

@Ezrengel, Re: Rule of Law:
Technically it can be dropped first turn with a Chrome Mox and a Tomb. I'm liking the Moxen more and more in testing.

[Carney2k4]

I'm liking the Moxen more and more in testing.

So am I. They smooth out the mana base, and work oh so well with Tithe. The Moxen make the deck alot more consistent, IMO. God, I'm really liking this deck.

[disrupted]

And in this ultimte anti Solidarity hand either way you need two plains, a Mom, a True believe. Or a 2 Mana land a mox and a Rule of law.

I think a previous post regarding this just being a bad matchup is really on target.

Rule of law seems to be inherantly a stronger answer against storm combo.

However True beliver will prevent you from being targeted by anything, I.E. Black discard, Charbelcher. It is more versetile in that respect.

My real interest to those who have playtested this deck against red is, does anybody really ever let you untap with Mom on turn 2 or is this a midgame drop?

In my experience playing and playing against similar decks more pro red/black creatures are a benefit. I noticed befor a debate about this decks abilities VS Gobs and other Sligh. I understand the threat base being very dense in this deck but really wonder if two Palidin En-Vec might not be a good addition? I know what would you cut.

I just wanted to post some thoughts on this deck as for anyone who has ever had the crap kicked out of them by good WW in extended can attest Shadow, Pro-red, Geddon And that god-darned Wave are really solid. Mask of Memory was tech in my G/W beatdown deck in Extended last year. It is so fast and so good.

Thanks for the decklist and all the thoughts. Better by far than the version I have sporatically worked on.

[Revert_To_Saved]

My real interest to those who have playtested this deck against red is, does anybody really ever let you untap with Mom on turn 2 or is this a midgame drop?

In my experience playing and playing against similar decks more pro red/black creatures are a benefit. I noticed befor a debate about this decks abilities VS Gobs and other Sligh. I understand the threat base being very dense in this deck but really wonder if two Palidin En-Vec might not be a good addition? I know what would you cut.

So far, I have never been able to even get an active Mom against the Goblins I've tested. The build ran much more burn than others, and early game it always got a bolt or some such, late game, with all the pro red creatures, they normally burned it out of sheer boredom.

I really don't think that more pro red or black creatures would be beneficial for this deck, not because it wouldn't be a good idea, but it would be hard finding something to bump out in their place.

[banky]

I honestly dont mind them burning away my Mom as Im always stabilizing at 5 or fewer life.

One game during my testing of this deck (with Moxen) had me at 1 life while burning away all my early, non-pro-red guys such as Mom and Lions. I beat with angel and double-equipped shadow-man, while my opponent is stuck on two non-Piledriver beaters so he cant get through my two Knights. He top-decks lightning bolt (I didnt know that at the time) and passes the turn as its useless against an angel and bunch of pro-red men. I play a Wave off mask draw from last turn and beat with everything putting him within alpha-strike. During his upkeep I remove his men and he top-decks a Lightning of the chain variety and simply scoops.

The early game Tithe's make this deck so brutal by thinning out two of only 11 plains that you draw nothing but gold late game.

[Zephyrus]

just a nitpick here, but wouldn't it be beneficial to run more than 1 Isamaru? I understand that getting doubles of Isamaru is bad but I don't think the possibility of two Isamaru is high enough to outweigh the advantages of a 1 mana 2/2. Maybe it's worth a try?

[Revert_To_Saved]

just a nitpick here, but wouldn't it be beneficial to run more than 1 Isamaru? I understand that getting doubles of Isamaru is bad but I don't think the possibility of two Isamaru is high enough to outweigh the advantages of a 1 mana 2/2. Maybe it's worth a try?

You could possibly run two, but I believe that overall the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.

D
-hurts if you draw more than one
with the amount of draw in this deck, this is not completely
unlikely to happen.
-hurts in the mirror match
I believe this is the most important point to take into
consideration, if this deck starts popping up, running more
than one could greatly hinder the mirror by allowing them a
way to, in a pinch, clear one of your creatures.

A
- One more defense
That would be really nice to have, especially against goblins
or other aggro heavy metas

Basically, in my testing, it depends on how many mirror matches you expect to play. Two seems to be the total possible amount that you could feasibly run, and in metas where you're not expeciting WW, I have found that the probability of being stuck with two is quite low despite the draw and therefore advantageous to run two. However, in the mirror, especially against a WW deck that depends more on weenies than angel and runs 3 or so Hounds, they are very disadvantageous and become a conditional and easily dealt with threat if the opponent so chooses.

Again, this is just what i have gathered in my testing.

[Zilla]

@Solidarity matchup:
I think we're all pretty well agreed that it's not a positive matchup. I'm more concerned witht he solution to this issue than the beating of a dead horse. As for suggestions of a "god hand", it's not all that unlikely to get one each of two cards I have 4 of in the deck. As for getting 2 Plains, well, that better happen or I have serious problems anyhow. As for the Rule of Law thing, I was suggesting it could be played first turn, not that it would be necessarily commonplace. As long as it hits turn 3 or sooner, you should be fine.

@The red matchup:
Mom is burn bait and nothing more in this matchup, which is perfectly fine. That's damage not going at my head region. The real threats here are the Knights, Priests, and Swords. Every game I've played against goblins and burn has been very positive, with very few exceptions. As for Paladin, I'd only suggest running them in an extremely black-heavy meta, and I'd likely run them over Silver Knight, since their function is identical. In most metas, I wouldn't recommend it though.

@Isamaru:
I agree with Revert on this one: simply, the risks outweighs the gain, in my opinion. Sure, it's not very likely you'll get stuck with two,,, but at the end of the day, that one extra toughness just isn't worth that slim risk, particularly because neither the Hounds nor the Lions play a primary strategic role, per se. They're simply there to fill out the curve and support your more significant threats.