[Article] So You Want To Kill Your Opponent On Turn One

[frogboy]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20499_Ideas_Unbound_So_You_Want_To_Kill_Your_Opponent_On_Turn_One.html

Tendrils primer, part one: the decklist. Part two, coming soon, is a bunch of matchup analysis with some general tips and tricks.

Go out and massacre some Survival decks.

[Nidd]

'Twas a nice read.

I have the complete MD and can borrow the rest, looks like I found a new Storm variant to test.

[Jonathan Alexander]

Nice article, thumbs up!
I like your reaoning and stuff, but you maybe focused too much on your own list. I agree on most parts, except for maybe Xantid Swarm mainboard. I think having more discard game one is slightly better, as it's more general (assuming you're not playing white). I also like having Empty The Warrens maindeck, but I think this is a matter of playstyle.
The only other card you could have mentioned was Oust, which is a decent wishtarget as long as you're playing white. Anyway, I like your list, I think having access to both Pulverize and Reverent Silence is pretty strong.
I'm really looking forward to the second article.

[OurSerratedDust]

I still think it is strange to run Pulverize in the board with only two mountains. How often is that relevant?

Great read by the way.

[Nidd]

I still think it is strange to run Pulverize in the board with only two mountains. How often is that relevant?

Great read by the way.
I suppose it's quite irrelevant - I've never faced Stax yet, but I've faced lots of Dragon Stompy and against them, you always have these 2 Mountains to sacrifice and get rid of their stuff.
Most decks that pack problematic artifacts don't feature Wasteland, so you can get your Red Duals.
Or you just wait with the cracking of your Fetches.

[Meekrab]

I still think it is strange to run Pulverize in the board with only two mountains. How often is that relevant
You can tap the lands for mana before sacrificing them, and most decks that you need it against can't do anything to you if you wish for it turn two and then cast it turn 3, so my guess it, not at all.

[ButtholeMcGhee]

This was a really awesome article.

[frogboy]

I still think it is strange to run Pulverize in the board with only two mountains. How often is that relevant?

Great read by the way.

It's pretty unusual. Against Dragon Stompy, they even give you Mountains for you with Blood Moon/Magus.

I probably should've mentioned Oust, yeah. It slipped my mind when I was thinking about how to beat Iona.

I'm glad everyone liked it. Part two will be up soon.

[emidln]

The only deck I can think of that consistently has Chalice and Wasteland is Aggro Loam. Fortunately for us (or maybe unfortunately, since that matchup was nearly a bye since they didn't do anything besides Chalice and Wasteland), Vengevine has rendered that deck several turns too slow to be relevant.

I approve of the decklist and name drops. That is almost exactly my list for the current metagame (I work in a 3rd Chain by moving Thoughtseize #4 to the maindeck, in effect going down to 6 duress).

It's worth noting that this list is excellent in the MTGO metagame if you cut Pulverize (doesn't exist) for Meltdown and Reverent Silence for a 3rd Chain (There is no even remotely useful analogue to Rev Silence in MTGO, and hate bears see significant play such that you always want either Thoughtseize or Chain of Vapor in your opening hand against not-blue).

[Nidd]

Something I noticed: Why don't you play 1 Duress 3 Thoughtseize in the SB? Is the difference in their targets actually relevant G2/G3 or did you simply miss the possibility of playing Duree#4 in the SB over Thoughtseize#4?

[frogboy]

You bring in Thoughtseize to fight hate bears after boarding.

[Bryant Cook]

First time I've read the source in two weeks. This is a pleasant thing to come back to, great article. Well written, very informative, I was name dropped, you choose Rite of Flame. I approve.

The only thing I didn't approve of was the manabase, but that's for a different thread somewhere else.

[jazzykat]

1. Very good article. The only one you've ever written that I really like.
2. Refer back to #1, where was all this knowledge and writing talent in your other articles? One of the best articles anywhere in quite a long time.
3. I tried out your list after playing Bryant's. Your list is more for the non-bryant cooks of the world. It is more simple and straightforward. I don't feel terribly overwhelmed by the crazy lines of play, it is nearly as flexible,feels a lot like old AdNT lists but a little slower, and may have slightly more flat out power than 5 color TES. In short, I feel more comfortable with it and it performs very well.
4. Thank you for writing a great article. I truly look forward to reading the second half.

[Amon Amarth]

Good article. DO WANT 2nd half. Next week, I presume?

[frogboy]

@Amon: I submitted the second half yesterday. The Talent Search is messing with the schedule, but I imagine it will go up early next week.

@jazzykat: Thanks. Heh. I think we have very different opinions on the format as a whole but we both like tech.

@Bryant: I mean we've been over this but jeeeeeeeeeeez did I hate seeing Wasteland when I played your list :B

[majikal]

I still think it is strange to run Pulverize in the board with only two mountains. How often is that relevant?

Great read by the way.
It seems worthwhile to include, honestly. At the very worst it gets past Null Rod if the opponent is packing it; I hear that card is pretty bad news.

[Bahamuth]

Some small points:

Have you considered and tested 3 Chrome Mox? I assume you did. Mox is almost always dead in multiples.

Do you board in the IGG in the aggro matchup? I like to board the IGG in for a IT, which gives much bigger certainty at turn 3 wins.

[Bardo]

I'm getting caught-up on my back log of MTG reading but wanted to micro-necro this thread to say the article was totally sweet.

I really dug the style and content, Max.

Really well done.