Prologue
A few people suggested making a new thread for this deck. The deck is a bit different than traditional Deadguy and seems a bit off track to discuss in the B/w Deadguy thread... so I created a new one. If the mods feel this needs to be merged back into the Deadguy thread, that's fine. I think it warrants its own thread, though.
Decklist
B/w/g Deadguy Rock
Aggro/Board Control
A Hanni Homebrew
Lands (22)
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
3 Scrubland
3 Bayou
4 Swamp
4 Wasteland
Creatures (11)
3 Nantuko Shade
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
Spells (27)
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Vindicate
3 Pernicious Deed
Sideboard (15)
3 Unmask
3 Extirpate
4 Engineered Plague
4 Dystopia
1 Pernicious Deed
Deck Information
I believe the deck adequately supports a 3c splash. All of the lands (besides Wasteland) still produce black, it's rather easy to get BB (even with basic swamps), and the deck still has Dark Ritual as additional black mana sources. 22 Lands + 4 Rituals has been more than enough in my playtesting, even against mana denial decks. The deck is still predominantly black, with 7 MD white spells and 7 MD green spells.
Most of the core of traditional Deadguy is still left in tact (and made better, IMO):
12 LD spells
8 Discard spells
11 Creature Removal spells
7 Large Creatures
The deck drops Hyppie. I've never been a fan of Hyppie in this deck. Tarmogoyf gives the deck 7 big finishing creatures. Tarmogoyf can get really large early. This improves the aggro matchups by giving me an undercosted fatty. It also improves my board control and combo matchups by giving me a faster clock (the clock is extremely fast). Tarmgoyf is a frickin house. The deck easily funds Tarmogoyf with 12 sac lands (and LD), 16 sorceries, 11 creatures (plus creature removal), 8 instants, and 3 enchantments MD... not to mention the fact that I can discard spell types from my opponent's hand too. It is not uncommon to drop a Tarmogoyf on turn 2 as a 4/5... and it is not uncommon to get Tarmogoyf up to 5/6 and even 6/7. 1G for a 6/7 is just so rediculously broken that I can't even explain it.
The deck runs a low threat base and Pernicious Deed. Since the deck only ever really needs to commit one guy to the board (aside from Confidant in addition to), Deed doesn't hurt this deck much. Drop Deed then Drop Tarmogoyf is an extremely strong play. This deck doesn't utilize any other artifacts/enchantments either. With Ritual, the deck can pop Deed for 1 on turn 2. Deed, along with Shade, give the deck functional uses out of topdecked Rituals mid-late game (as well as making functional use out of mana floods). Deed is simply nuts in this deck. The deck is a resource denial deck and Deed is a mass resource denial spell. With Vindicate, the deck easily answers artifacts/enchantments. The deck already answers lands. With StP, the deck answers creatures extremely well too. Combined with the stack control of discard, the deck can pretty much answer everything. Deed seems to improve nearly every matchup and I feel like it is exactly what Deadguy needed.
Tarmogoyf + Deed has been amazing in testing, and I've playtested this deck alot. I've played countless matches against Tier 1/2 decks on MWS so far. I don't think I've lost a 2/3 game set yet (I may have lost 1 or 2, not sure).
The addition of 4 StP as opposed to 2 or 0 improves my Goblins matchup further, as well as other aggro matchups. I always felt like the biggest weakness for Deadguy was aggro matchups (mainly fast paced decks like Goblins, Affinity, and even Elves). The additions of Tarmogoyf, StP, and Deed really seem to shore my aggro matchups up drastically.
I love the way the MD and SB is configured. The maindeck is basically aggro/board control... except the board control includes LD too. The maindeck still has stack control with 8 MD discard spells. In postboard games, the deck can adopt stack control (6 cards) or more board control (9 cards). This allows the deck to hybridize to beat what it needs to extremely effeciently. The deck has answers to nearly everything, and Extirpate even gives me graveyard hate too.
Honestly, I think this deck is good enough to be a DTB if it ever catches, from my testing with it. It beats combo pretty handily, especially postboard (fast combo and control combo). It beats aggro/control pretty handily too, especially postboard (Fish, Thresh, Slivers, even B/r Sui somewhat). It also does really well against board control, especially postboard (4c Landstill, etc). My Goblins matchup is really good too, especially postboard... in fact, all of my aggro matchups are improved by the green splash, and I've been beating aggro strategies pretty handily in testing. I'm not saying this deck doesn't lose, or that this deck is the best deck, but this deck just feels so overpowered. Bash me all you want for my opinions.
SB Strategies, Outlined for the 4 Decktypes
SB plan vs Threshold:
-4 Sinkhole
-3 Swords to Plowshares
+4 Dystopia
+3 Extirpate
LD is good against Threshold, but board control is better. 1 StP, 4 Vindicate, 4 Dystopia, and 3 Deed (along with Tarmo and Shade as somewhat anti aggro), the deck pretty much keeps their board clean. Extirpate adds insult to injury by decreasing their threat count.
I love how this deck feels like aggro/board control. I classify Landstill as aggro/board control, but I like how this deck is just so much more aggressive.
SB plan vs Goblins:
-4 Duress
+4 Engineered Plague
The deck still plays the LD game with Wasteland, Vindicate, Sinkhole, and Deed (vs Vial), but the deck transforms into board control too. 4 StP, 4 Vindicate, 4 Engineered Plague, 3 Deed keep the table clear. Tarmogoyf and Nantuko Shade are beasts when the Goblins opponent only has one or a few small Goblins in play. The vulnerability against Goblins comes from the 3c manabase vs Wasteland/Port... the deck does run 22 lands and 4 mana sources though, and along with it's own set of LD (that might keep the opponent from attacking your manabase as aggressively), I think the deck should be just fine. I can see this deck getting locked out of colors if played improperly... fetch a few basic Swamps first, and crack fetchlands for color sources when you are about to play said spell, and you shouldn't have too many problems.
SB plan vs Fast Combo
-4 Sinkhole
-4 Vindicate
-2 Swords to Plowshares
+3 Unmask
+3 Extirpate
+4 Engineered Plague
LD isn't really that good against decks like Belcher, which don't rely on land mana sources. Vindicate is also too slow to be relevant. Unmask comes in as additional turn 1 discard, while Extirpate can be used to hose win conditions. Engineered Plague is there to protect against EtW, with Ritual to power it out if need be.
SB plan vs Slow Combo
-4 Swords to Plowshares
-2 Pernicious Deed
+3 Unmask
+3 Extirpate
LD is usually effective against decks like Salvagers, Aluren, and Solidarity. They all typically need 4 lands to go off, where the LD plan buys tons of time. The deck still adds Unmask as additional discard and Extirpate to hose win conditions.
SB plan vs (4c) Landstill
-3 Pernicious Deed
+3 Extirpate
What I love about Extirpate is it's versatility. Landstill's biggest weakness (and most control decks) is LD... Extirpate plays right into the LD game by removing Fetches/Duals, or pulling out win conditions since the run so few (which, against 4c Landstill, happen to be lands too). Deed is good at answering Crucible, and Standstill to an extent, but Vindicate should have that covered for the most part. Deed does effect their manlands, so it's still good in that respect, but I think StP and Vindicate (with Extirpate) should have that covered. Locking them out of G/W keeps them off Monastery anyway. Shade + Tarmogoyf outsize all of their threats and the deck can easily ride 1 threat to victory. They are forced to make 1 for 1 trades because of this. Confidant gives me a draw engine and my proactive disruption attacks their reactive disruption.
Epilogue
I'll udpate with more info as I do more playtesting and as I get more time to add more stuff.
I frickin love this deck.
Enjoy.
Last edited by Hanni; 07-05-2007 at 05:24 PM.
Personally, I think you should cut the 4th Swords against Threshold altogether, and just side in the 4th Deed.
I also think an extra set of Threats coming from the board would be pretty good for this deck.
ICBE - We're totally the coolest Anti-Thesis ever.
"The Citrus-God just had a Citrus-Supernova... in your mouth."
Hanni, as much as I love your decks and respect you as a designer, I am seeing a serious problem with running maindeck Deeds and only eleven low casting cost kill conditions. Granted a late-game Shade or Tarmogoyf can probably go all the way, but if you have killed even two of your eleven creatures, your opponents may be able to remove whatever else you draw, with the odds of drawing enother one low enough for them to win in the meantime. This is possibly born from my status as a Truffle Shuffle player, where removal is almost the entire deck, and the creatures laugh at STP and Deed, but I see your low threat density and zero evasion as a huge hurdle. Then again, the rather low concentration of control may make this largely irrelevant, so Threshold would be a more important matchup. Against Thresh, is your discard always enough to stop them from countering/killing all your threats?
Nitpick: You do not play twelve LD spells. You play eight LD spells and four Wasteland. Sorry, but I actually did a double-take and looked for the 3 Rancid Earth.
NAntuko Shade seems just bad to me... Jotun Grunt should be 10 times better. 'Goyf and Grunt are really a good set of undercosted beaters...
Last time I checked, Tarmogoyf and Jotun Grunt didn't work very well together...Originally Posted by Elfrago
I don't know where to post this. This is not deadguy and not your deck, but another new thread would be stupid.
I build a similar deck, but with Smallpox instead of Swords to Plowshares. I felt the mana base was overloaded with both splashes.
Tombstalker is a real bomb, I never had problems with him and Tarmo because when you cast it there are always many multiple cards of one type in the yards. Revealing him with Confidant is a risk you have to take, but he is great with Deed.
// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
4 [U] Bayou
6 [RAV] Swamp (1)
1 [RAV] Overgrown Tomb
4 [TE] Wasteland
// Creatures
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf
4 [RAV] Dark Confidant
3 [TO] Nantuko Shade
2 [FUT] Tombstalker
// Spells
4 [IA] Dark Ritual
4 [7E] Duress
4 [AT] Hymn to Tourach
4 [U] Sinkhole
4 [AP] Pernicious Deed
4 [TSP] Smallpox
// Sideboard
SB: 4 [7E] Engineered Plague
SB: 4 [AL] Dystopia
SB: 4 [FNM] Withered Wretch
SB: 3 [TSP] Krosan Grip
Last time i heard dealing 8 to urself is bad...unless of course ur untapping Phyrexian Colossus.
Jokes aside, other than flipping him over for a whooping 8 to youself he hurts gofy as well maybe just cut him for another shade and somethign else.
Well Tombstalker doesnt hurt gofy all that much but it does to a certain extent.
Well, I kinda like the lone StP. It's additional diversity vs Meddling Mage and it's also an early and cheap answer to opposing Goyfs, etc. 4 Deed seems like overkill with 4 Dystopia. Also, I run 3 because they run Needle. Overall that board plan vs Threshold has been winning me countless games vs them. I've seen people say constantly that the best application of Tarmogoyf was in Threshold but yet I've been smashing Threshold religiously, so I dunno.Personally, I think you should cut the 4th Swords against Threshold altogether, and just side in the 4th Deed.
I also think an extra set of Threats coming from the board would be pretty good for this deck.
Extra set of threats vs what? Thresh? I much prefer the board control strategy of 1 StP, 4 Vindicate, 4 Dystopia, 3 Deed, and 3 Extirpate (on win conditions). Also keep in mind that the low threat count of 11 is necessary for this deck because it plays board control too.
You are misunderstanding how to use Deed properly then. Early game, you are playing control. Discard, LD, Removal. The opponent puts permanents into play, this deck removes them. Deed is amazing. Once control has been established, at least somewhat, then you can drop a beater. You only ever need 1 guy in play to go the distance... on a clear table (because of Deed), a 5/6 Tarmogoyf can easily go the distance. You can drop a guy early as anti aggro, which I do occasionally. The deck only runs 3 Deeds, so this doesn't conflict very often (and the deck can easily Deed 1 of my finishers away and then proceed to drop another).I am seeing a serious problem with running maindeck Deeds and only eleven low casting cost kill conditions.
The low threat count is actually why Deed is so good here. The low threat count consists of 7 finishing guys... meaning you can just keep playing board control and then switch over and play the kill. The design itself may not make sense at first on paper. Try it out in practice. It's extremely strong.
The thing about this is that I don't just drop guys and hope they live. I play control first. I hit my opponent's with discard. I hit my opponent's with LD. My opponent is being put off balance. I drop a finisher when they are off balance and then win the game before they can recover. If a creature gets removed, I'm still running 6 more large finishers. If anything, the fact that this deck has 7 big creatures as opposed to the Confidant/Hyppie/Shade list makes this deck even less vulnerable to removal IMO.Granted a late-game Shade or Tarmogoyf can probably go all the way, but if you have killed even two of your eleven creatures
Right. That's why I play 11 MD removal spells, 3 of them being mass removal. I keep the board clear, of basically everything, and then drop a huge finisher that doesn't have evasion. The few stuff my opponent has left on the table is almost always lower quality than my 4/5 (average Tarmo) or 7/6 (average Shade w/ pumps). They can chump, but only for so long. Then they die quickly. I already explained the threat density situation. The low threat density is the whole reason why this deck concept works.but I see your low threat density and zero evasion as a huge hurdle.
Low concentration of control? Are you kidding me? How in the hell does this deck have a low concentration of control? The only thing it has a low concentration of is draw (4 Confidant). Otherwise, besides the 7 big beaters, the entire rest of the deck is control. Discard, LD, and Removal. The Threshold matchup is fantastic, especially postboard. They can have countermagic all they want, my proactive discard negatively affects their reactive counters... and regardless, I simply run too much removal for them to counter all of it anyway (1 StP, 4 Vindicate, 4 Dystopia, 3 Deed, with 3 Extirpate to remove win conditions). They can StP a couple of my guys, I'll just topdeck into more. If they run burn, they can't even answer my beaters without 2 or 3-for1'ing themselves. This deck has more, and larger, win conditions than 4c Landstill, and the black-based control is more punishing against Threshold than opposing blue-based control, so I'm not sure what the problem is.Then again, the rather low concentration of control may make this largely irrelevant, so Threshold would be a more important matchup. Against Thresh, is your discard always enough to stop them from countering/killing all your threats?
Have you ever played Deadguy? Nantuko Shade is crucial. Grunt is a 1W for a temporary 4/4 graveyard hoser, Shade is BB for a 9/8 game finisher (9/8 isn't an exageration either). Big difference there. For this deck especially, the big finisher is alot more potent. However, Tarmogoyf + Grunt have terrible synergy anyway.NAntuko Shade seems just bad to me... Jotun Grunt should be 10 times better. 'Goyf and Grunt are really a good set of undercosted beaters...
As far as Tombstalker goes, I really don't see why I'd need him. The deck runs 7 big beaters right now and I have never felt a need for more, and I haven't had a problem with lack of evasion at all either. Tombstalker has bad synergy with the deck similar to Grunt, albeit not as bad, and it has bad synergy with Confidant as well.
@ Tao
You really need Vindicate though. I think Vindicate is the strongest card in the deck. 13 threats is also a bit worse with running 4 Smallpox and 4 Deed... with that sort of control package, you aren't going to want to commit any threats on the board until the board is clear and you're just going to be drawing into extra guys you don't want to drop... or you're going to be killing off your own guys, which is bad. 13 threats isn't really too bad, or too much of a difference from 11, but the 2 less creatures does actually improve the board control philosophy a little more.
I meant that there was a low concentration of control in the METAGAME, not in your deck!
My appologies, dre4m. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I also hope you didn't view my post as hostile, cause it wasn't intended to be that way in the first place. If you think about it from my position though, that does sound rediculous to say that this deck has a low concentration of control.
As far as the metagame goes, I still think their is a fair bit of control. Not traditional control, like 4c Landstill, but control in the form of Threshold and similar decks. Most aggro decks nowadays are running either 7 discard spells or at least 7 countermagic spells to fight off combo. I constantly get paired up against decks like Loam and such on MWS though. The MWS metagame is pretty random, which is why I posted a SB strategy and matchup analysis sorta thing for the 4 major archtypes.
Most aggro/control decks, from my experience, have at least 50/50-ish matchups across the whole field. Fish and Thresh do this and I've always felt like Deadguy did this as well. Relevant topdecks and playskill usually tend to be the biggest factorts. With this Deadguy list, not only can the deck go at least 50/50 with a majority of the field, there are a bunch of matchups it just steamrolls. I liked Fish for this reason, but this Deadguy list just seems to steamroll far more matchups. The only thing I never liked about Deadguy, and why I prefered Fish, was consistency... Fish runs cantrips and more draw to ensure consistent gameplay. However, I've found this Deadguy list to be extremely consistent.
I frickin love this deck. :p
Well... not exactly Thresh... I'm thinking against slower decks, like Fish, or Rifter, or even Angel Stompy. Never under estimate the power of boarding in more threats. They can be very strong.
I'm thinking Hidden Gibbons right now, but they're only good against Blue decks. Monasteries suck now. I know Jotun Grunts work as additional threats. I know, I know, I know, you think that Goyf is good enough, but they suck against Grunts. Grunts at least dismantle opposing Goyfs so you never lose the board control war.
ICBE - We're totally the coolest Anti-Thesis ever.
"The Citrus-God just had a Citrus-Supernova... in your mouth."
More threats conflicts with me playing board control. And against the deck you mentioned, board control is really really strong. Dystopia + Deed are both amazing vs Fish and Angel Stompy.Well... not exactly Thresh... I'm thinking against slower decks, like Fish, or Rifter, or even Angel Stompy. Never under estimate the power of boarding in more threats. They can be very strong.
Against board control (like Rifter), I can see where the higher threat density would be a good option. However, board control decks hate LD. Especially Rifter, because it's draw package isn't very strong (cycling isn't nearly as good as something like FoF, IMO). Discard also helps here. The opponent never gets to make card advantage plays because I only commit 1 threat to the board. Discard keeps their hand count low and the LD itself just completely wrecks them. When I compliment the LD/discard with Extirpate, I feel like I'm the better control deck. The other great factor, vs Rifter at least, is that they play alot of permanents like Rift, Humility, etc and I'm playing Vindicate/Deed. So basically what I am saying is, boarding in more threats would help, but simply playing a better control game also helps. Since the deck is already designed to do it this way, it's much easier to just do it this way than to try and reconfigure the deck to use more threats.
Well, Goyf does suck against Grunt. I've played UWb Fish vs Thresh w/ Goyf though... the thing about that is, Grunt still takes at least a few turns to start shrinking Goyf usually, and even a 4/5 is still larger than Grunt. I do definitely agree that Grunt is strong vs Goyf, though. However, I am running 8 spot removal spells and 3 mass removal spells, so hopefully opposing Grunt's never stay in play long enough. As far as running them myself, they are anti synergistic with my Goyfs. I'm not worried about opposing Goyfs enough to run Grunt and make my own Goyfs weaker. In fact, Vindicating a Goyf and then Extirpating it is probably the strongest play this deck has vs Threshold.I know Jotun Grunts work as additional threats. I know, I know, I know, you think that Goyf is good enough, but they suck against Grunts. Grunts at least dismantle opposing Goyfs so you never lose the board control war.
I shouldn't be losing the board control war often anyway. We both run low threat density's, except they run a ton of cantrip so they tend to see more threats. I run far more removal spells, so I should almost always see more removal. If I don't stabilize the board, then I probably lose. I've yet to be unable to do this though. Grunt is obviously better vs Thresh than my own Tarmogoyfs, but Tarmogoys are still good vs them and about 100x better against the rest of the field. I could board Grunt's, but why? I haven't had problems with Threshold to where I think I need them there and I like Extirpate as graveyard hate much better because of it's versatility of strengthening certain gameplans in certain matchups (like LD vs control decks).
I apologize in advance for being stubborn with peoples suggestions. However, I've been playtesting this deck like I have no life and I don't really see a need to change anything, currently. I mean, the deck can obviously be tuned according the metagame, i.e dropping StP's in an aggro light metagame for MD Extirpate or Unmask, etc. The list, as it is right now though, is built beautifully to go in to a random metagame (like a large tournament) and handle all the randomness, from aggro to combo to etc. Moreso than trying to get the deck tweaked, I just want people to try the deck out. I mean, most of the tweaking has already been done with the past developments of B/w Deadguy itself. Everyone can tune this to their liking, though, which is perfectly fine. I just want to see this deck take off because it clearly has the power to do so.
I think the hardest matchup for this deck is Truffle Shuffle, because both decks utilize similar gameplans but Truffle Shuffle seems to utilize a stronger draw engine (Top) and recurring beaters.
EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I'm thinking Deadguy Rock is a better deck name than Rockguy.
Love the idea of this deck, and might have to try it out. Tarmogoyf is really the kind of card this sort of deck was missing, and it should make it a lot better vs. other aggro decks.
Anyways, have you considered Loxodon Hierarch at all? He goes a little above the curve maybe and could be steering the deck in a different direction, but it's so unbelievably good against aggro decks that it might be worth it.
I also somewhat question cutting Hypnotic Specter. Without the Specter it seems a lot of the land denial from the original version is gone, and I thought that was one of the most powerful parts of the deck. Overall I just feel like the deck could use another creature, but maybe it's just me.
EDIT: I've also made the decision to call this deck Deadgoyf.
Why play this instead of the Truffle Shuffle?
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=3816
The creator of Truffle Shuffle claims that it has a positive matchup against Deadguy Ale.
Last edited by Fistandantilus; 07-05-2007 at 06:25 PM. Reason: include quote from IBA
The decks really aren't all that similar. They obviously play the same colors, but they have totally different philosophies and it seems silly to compare them to each other. The positive matchup versus Deadguy Ale is completely irrelevant because the decks will rarely face each other and this version is quite different from the original.
Maybe you don't all like this idea, but I think Knight of Stromgald might be better than Nantuko Shade. I know Shade is a beast, but being pro-white is excellent against a topdecked STP or vindicate, not to mention the pump factor that the knight still has. If there is a general worry about the small number of creatures in the deck than the knight might be a better strategy because of protection.
OK. So they have different philosophies. I don't think that I ever claimed otherwise.
Does this deck have better matchups against the field than Truffle Shuffle does? If so, how?
Even the author admits that this deck has a hard time with Truffle Shuffle. So I ask again: Why should I play this instead of Truffle Shuffle? Unless this deck has a better matchup against the field than Truffle Shuffle does, I'll play the deck that wins the match between this deck and Truffle Shuffle.
P.S. You say that it is "silly" to compare this deck to Truffle Shuffle, apparently because "they have totally different philosophies," but even the deck's creator has made the comparison AND has EVEN said that the decks have "similar gameplans."
Perhaps you are the one who is "silly."
Last edited by Fistandantilus; 07-05-2007 at 06:51 PM. Reason: include quote by Hanni
Anyways, have you considered Loxodon Hierarch at all?Loxodon Hierarch is solid, but requiring both off colors just seems way too constricting. 4cc is also a little out of the curve and generally too slow against the aggro decks this deck has problems with (fast aggro). I see the benefit with it and Deed, but I still don't think it's going to fit well.I also somewhat question cutting Hypnotic Specter.
Hypnotic Specter is a 2/2 flyer for 3cc. What is it really good against? So many decks in the format can answer a 2/2 flyer, especially when it costs 3cc, and how devastating is it really? The deck is generally going to put fast aggro decks into topdeck mode anyway. The deck has plenty of A 2/2 flyer just seems fundamentally flawed compared to a 6/7 beatstick, IMO. The random discard is great, but this deck has sufficient disruption tools as is and I think a fatter creature is a better choice for aggro. I've never really liked Hyppie, at all. This is possibly a personal preference.
Why play this instead of the Truffle Shuffle?Because Truffle Shuffle is a pure control deck and this deck is an aggro/control deck. That means that this deck boasts a much stronger combo matchup. Much, much stronger. The clock in this deck is blazingly faster than Truffle Shuffles. Truffle Shuffle may have more room for removal (and Top for draw), but it runs much less aggro and a far slower clock. Truffle Shuffle has card advantage via recurring creatures and a long term card quality engine via Top... that's why it's unfavorable vs this deck (similar strategies otherwise). Against the rest of the field, I'd much rather be playing this deck. Even against aggro, since this deck has a faster win condition.Even the author admits that this deck has a hard time with Truffle Shuffle.
Knight of Stromgald is awful in this deck. It's great in Mono Black Aggro (Sui), but it's not what this deck wants. A 2/2 for 2 is just too small, regardless of it's other possible benefits. This deck is not worried about StP, even though several others have questioned this too. This deck wants very large finishers. It controls the game, drops a fatty, wins before the opponent recovers. Stromgald can pump, but in no way like Shade. However, this deck can be metagamed, as mentioned before. If your metagame is white/StP infested, I'm sure Knight would be a fine replacement for Shade. In a metagame of randomness, I'd much rather run Shade in this deck.Maybe you don't all like this idea, but I think Knight of Stromgald might be better than Nantuko Shade. I know Shade is a beast, but being pro-white is excellent against a topdecked STP or vindicate, not to mention the pump factor that the knight still has. If there is a general worry about the small number of creatures in the deck than the knight might be a better strategy because of protection.
In the early game, Truffle Shuffle and this deck both aim to control the board and disrupt the opponent. The two decks are similar in this regard. The difference starts at turn 3 or 4, where this deck, having (hopefully) disrupted its opponent, typically switches to aggro and attempts to win the game shortly thereafter. Truffle Shuffle, on the other hand, will spend the next several turns further disrupting the opponent and slowly building card and board advantage. In the very late game, it will capitalize on its stronger poition with larger, slower, recurring beaters to try to seal the deal.
Because Truffle Shuffle relies on fewer, slower, larger threats to ultimately win the game, it is going to be much stronger against aggro and aggro-control decks. It is going to be much, much worse against combo decks for the same reason.
I also just want to say that the LD that this deck utilizes is more devastating against Truffle Shuffle than the LD they use against me, mainly because they are a true board control deck. The matchup isn't unwinnable, I just consider Truffle Shuffle to be more favored because it wins the attrition war. I've never actually playtested this version of Deadguy vs Truffle Shuffle so I have absolutely no matchup analysis/statics to actually present.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
/