[Deck] Dragon Stompy

Yeah, what LeoCop said. :wink:

Purphoros was a 1-of because I was asked to try him out. He probably would have been a 2nd Instigator Gang otherwise.
The only time I saw Qal Sisma Behemoth, he ate a Force of Will from my opponent. I like the Behemoth as a 1-of, but doubt I'd ever go higher than that since he is so mana hungry. That said, some decks just can't handle a 5/5. And for the rest he's just the ham sandwich to win with after sticking a Blood Moon.

You won't hear any arguments from me if you say Imperial Recruiter is a playable card in this deck. I do feel it is too slow to warrant spending $800 on a playset.
So I'm going to continue playing what I want, cause that's fun for me. And I'll keep reporting here for the same reasons. :tongue:

Ace and LeoCop - Definitely play what you want to, that's what the game is all about. Some people like the surprise factor of 1-ofs in their deck. Just from a competitive point of view, surprise factor only works when your opponent doesn't know what your deck is doing, but you do.

Legendary cards... sometimes you want the 1x, this is true. But in a deck with no filtering or tutoring, I think it's fine to run 2-3 Jitte; it's just so powerful a card, that you run a suboptimal # just so you can see it. I think Eureka Superfriends is the only non-tutoring deck where you want to run weird 1-2x copies of rando, powerful cards. Just to make Eureka a more powerful play.

And as for Recruiter, I ran a white stompy last night with the new Recruiter. I thought it would be good... but it was just totally busted. Esp when your 3-4 Tormod's Crypts can go down to 1x Faerie Macabre (and Containment Priest in this case); 4 Revokers -> 1. It opens your maindeck a little, and really your SB in so many unfair ways. The white deck is basically the same as mono-Red, and in both cases, I think Recruiter is fine as your "4 or 5" drop slot. Still though, $200 ea is not going to happen. Only if your LGS allows you to proxy a couple things, then I strongly suggest playtesting it.

But yeah, I mean, definitely play what you want to. That's the fun part of magic. I didn't mean to wag my finger or anything, but just point out that consistency is so important in stompy and other non-filtering, non-tutoring decks. I'm of the opinion that if you want to playtest something, esp in this style deck, you should jam the full 4x and see how and where it works, and doesn't work.

Also with a lot of the more recent lists posted here people are using the extra slots to test out the one-ofs. The lists on the previous page are mostly experimental in that regard.

As Imperial Painter is my other main deck I started playing stompy with 4 recruiters exactly for the consistency reason and thought of everyone else not interested in adding consistency as... well... whatever :wink:
I was absolutely happy with it in my moggcatcher build, but found that the full playset of them were too many - you just don't have enough room if you have a full set of prison elements, moggcatcher and the toolbox. And in general: the extra turn it takes you to play what you tutored for really matters in many cases.

Now with Rabblemaster and Hanweir Garrison all you want is speed and overwhelm the opponent before he can stabilize with the additional prison element every now and then (yes I do play 8 Moons and 4 CotV, no no room for 3sphere). But the focus has shifted. My aim when playing this deck is to play consistent must-answers, no matter whether it is a prison element or a heavy beater. In this pattern of thinking, Recruiter is just too slow as my primary target is to play a must-answer card every single turn. (Fun fact: don't underestimate the perceived must-answer impact of suboptimal beaters like Scab-Clan Berserker - I've found sooo many opponents being more scared by him than by my other threats, I don't know why)

Of course the consistency problem still is a huge problem of this archetype. In my current list I'm using prophetic flamespeakere as a means to not die to drawing 4 lands in a row and have been experimenting with sin prodder but found it underwhelming.
Next test subject is gonna be taurean mauler (again a card of the category "not so strong but hopefully the opponent is afraid of it").

But concerning the sideboard plan obviously, frogger, you are absolutely right. I'm loving my imperial painter deck for exaclty this reason when comparing it to this one: Over there I have such a huge toolbox of answers and consistently find them due to 7 tutor effects available. In my stompy deck I'm more or less used to loosing against dredge for example and that really sucks.

Consistency has more to do with the type of card. The situation that ruins your game is going to be drawing land, mox, spirit guide, land when you need a significant threat. The issue, vast majority of the time, is not going to be "dang I drew this particular 3-drop aggro creature when I wanted a different 3-drop aggro creature".

It's not really a surprise factor, it's more of simply needing more of a type of card while already having 4-of what is considered the best.

Although yes, if you are playtesting in order to determine how good a potential addition is, you might have to go up to 3 or 4 just to see the dang thing even if you know that in a real tournament you wouldn't run those numbers.

Talking about consistency and 4 ofs, let's make a list then of all must answer 4 ofs creatures that should be in the deck. I would consider Thunderbreak Regent a must have 4 of. Along with obviously spirit, magus, rabblemaster and probably the new guy on the block Hanweir Garrison. That makes 20 creatures what would the last 4 of be, Scab-clan maybe?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N930A using Tapatalk

The issue when discussing consistency in regards to this deck is that this specific deck wants to be consistent in a different way than any deck playing Brainstorm. Brainstorm decks want to find land-drops until they reach the required amount (2 or 3), deploy efficient threats while holding countermagic, and find silver bullets while filtering. Brainstorm and Ponder let those pilots find the lands/threats/counters/bullets, and fetchlands help shuffle away unwanted cards.

This deck wants to consistently play Blood Moon or Chalice on turn 1. That is why approximately half(!) the deck is mana. If half your deck is mana, you are going to have stretches where you draw only mana... Them's the breaks!

Consistency in this deck is finding a threat after landing your prison element. It mostly doesn't matter what the threat is, just that it is a threat.
Consistency in this deck is running 8 :2::r: beaters that make tokens to continue beating if they are answered.
Consistency in this deck is playing a Blood Moon after your opponent Plows your Magus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CovenantElite30

Talking about consistency and 4 ofs, let's make a list then of all must answer 4 ofs creatures that should be in the deck. I would consider Thunderbreak Regent a must have 4 of. Along with obviously spirit, magus, rabblemaster and probably the new guy on the block Hanweir Garrison. That makes 20 creatures what would the last 4 of be, Scab-clan maybe?

---

The core of this deck is:

4 Blood Moon
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Simian Spirit Guide

Everything else is debatable! Lists have done well running Sandstone Needle over City of Traitors. Some lists use Cavern of Souls and shave off Chrome Mox. Your threats can be werewolves, goblins, humans, dragons...

Having said that, it is still worthwhile to strive for a list that is 'the best'. But even something like Thunderbreak Regent isn't a 'must answer 4-of' against all decks. Decks like Reanimator and Show and Tell shrug that off. Scab-Clan means nothing against Elves or Death & Taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

The core of this deck is:

4 Blood Moon
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Simian Spirit Guide

Everything else is debatable!

---

Absolutely. The truest thing ever said here.

@square_two - you said you'd probably not jam the 3-4 copies of a (non-essential) card in an actual tournament. Why not? Is it because it's Legendary, too high on the manacurve, or just "eh." I'm just trying to bring up the point that, if you want to talk competitive construction on these threads, your deck has to find some consistency. From my little bit of deckbuilding experience, if you're struggling to find those 1-2 cards to fill those last 8 slots, the deck isn't really going to be competitive. You should have about 4 cards you want to jam in there, and limited slots; you should be making the hard decision of "these are all really great and powerful cards, but I literally don't have the room for X and Y." Throw them in the SB or more likely just drop them altogether.

There are a million reasons not to jam 4x of a card, but that said, in a non-filtering, non-tutoring deck, 85% of the time you'll want 4x of a card. So a million reasons here = 15% about. If that. Even if it's the "2 Magma Jet, 2 Sudden Shock" split, there's no reason you shouldn't figure out which 4 you want. Why? Because you need to know how to play to your outs. If TD'ing a Sudden Shock will help you get out of a bind, but you're only running 2 - how are you going to plan for your next turn? 1/25 chance? If you know your outs, your opponents outs (which will likely be more obvious, assuming they're on a fairly stock list) now you have a huge advantage. You know how to set your board state to prepare for those 4 Sudden Shocks that you might draw at some point. Right?

I'm all for jamming what you want to, it's Murica, you do what you want. But if we're talking competitive play here, how to win tournaments etc., then it comes down to theory and practical building. That's why I'm talking about consistency here, and how to tune your deck optimally. That's what I enjoy, winning a ton of games and scraping to just miss T8. But with more style than some netdeck pretend-pro jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogger42

Absolutely. The truest thing ever said here.

@square_two - you said you'd probably not jam the 3-4 copies of a (non-essential) card in an actual tournament. Why not? Is it because it's Legendary, too high on the manacurve, or just "eh." I'm just trying to bring up the point that, if you want to talk competitive construction on these threads, your deck has to find some consistency. From my little bit of deckbuilding experience, if you're struggling to find those 1-2 cards to fill those last 8 slots, the deck isn't really going to be competitive. You should have about 4 cards you want to jam in there, and limited slots; you should be making the hard decision of "these are all really great and powerful cards, but I literally don't have the room for X and Y." Throw them in the SB or more likely just drop them altogether.

There are a million reasons not to jam 4x of a card, but that said, in a non-filtering, non-tutoring deck, 85% of the time you'll want 4x of a card. So a million reasons here = 15% about. If that. Even if it's the "2 Magma Jet, 2 Sudden Shock" split, there's no reason you shouldn't figure out which 4 you want. Why? Because you need to know how to play to your outs. If TD'ing a Sudden Shock will help you get out of a bind, but you're only running 2 - how are you going to plan for your next turn? 1/25 chance? If you know your outs, your opponents outs (which will likely be more obvious, assuming they're on a fairly stock list) now you have a huge advantage. You know how to set your board state to prepare for those 4 Sudden Shocks that you might draw at some point. Right?

I'm all for jamming what you want to, it's Murica, you do what you want. But if we're talking competitive play here, how to win tournaments etc., then it comes down to theory and practical building. That's why I'm talking about consistency here, and how to tune your deck optimally. That's what I enjoy, winning a ton of games and scraping to just miss T8. But with more style than some netdeck pretend-pro jerk.

---

That's just not true. I know where your head is at, but that's how Magic decks were built in 1998. We have moved past that.

Look at a format like standard, where this is very little filtering. You see people running splits of similar cards all the time. Your failing to consider things like it being better to draw card A and card B, than two copies of card A.

In your Sudden Shock vs Jet example, you are failing to account for what you are facing. You want Shock vs Infect, but Jet vs Maverick. In your deck, you have one or the other, but having both allows your deck to be more robust, because you know the baseline value of 1R: 2 damage is really what you want.

Yes, having more copies of a card increase consistency but it fails to have any nuance in deckbuilding. There is a reason that decks don't often look like 24 lands and 9 playsets anymore. We are beyond that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZTurgeon

In your Sudden Shock vs Jet example, you are failing to account for what you are facing. You want Shock vs Infect, but Jet vs Maverick. In your deck, you have one or the other, but having both allows your deck to be more robust, because you know the baseline value of 1R: 2 damage is really what you want.

---

I still don't see this. Do you have the option of choosing when to draw Shock vs when to draw Jet? No? Is it just totally random topdecking that you're doing here? Yes?
Can you prove with any degree of certainty (probability, any mathematical branch, really) that this is making your deck more robust? I'm pretty sure I can prove mathematically that what I'm saying has some merit.
Or I can just go away, if you don't want to hear what I'm trying to say. I think I'd just rather do that, at this point.

Looking to play my list tonight at fnm, any suggestions on changes would be great.
My meta is a lot of Miracles and D&T that's why I'm running 3 Sulfur Elemental in the side.
Also I've seen list run 4 Tormod's Crypt over Faerie Macabre, not sure which is better in this deck.
My thought is against storm you would play chalice on 0 so Crypt is not as good?

Creatures (24)
4 Goblin Rabblemaster
4 Hanweir Garrison
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Simian Spirit Guide
1 Sin Prodder
1 Sulfur Elemental
1 Avaricious Dragon
1 Pia and Kiran Nalaar
4 Thunderbreak Regent
Spells (17)
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Chrome Mox
4 Blood Moon
1 Collective Defiance
1 Chandra, Pyromaster
2 Fiery Confluence
1 Koth of the Hammer
Lands (20)
4 Ancient Tomb
1 Arid Mesa
4 City of Traitors
11 Mountain
Sideboard (15)
3 Phyrexian Revoker
2 Ensnaring Bridge
4 Faerie Macabre
3 Sulfur Elemental
3 Trinisphere
76 Cards Total

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CovenantElite30

Also I've seen list run 4 Tormod's Crypt over Faerie Macabre, not sure which is better in this deck.
My thought is against storm you would play chalice on 0 so Crypt is not as good?

---

Faerie vs Crypt... it depends. Faerie is nuts against Reanimator. Crypt is still pretty good, but often gets Forced. I wouldn't bring Faerie in vs Storm, though, because mostly Storm's effects work off of # of things in the GY, not specific cards. Like Cabal Ritual - you'll want to wipe the whole GY to slow that down. And even Past in Flames - Crypt keeps them from storming off completely, Faerie might get their 2 tutors if you're lucky. They still get all their cantrips.

The other thing to consider with Crypt is if you run Trinisphere - which your list doesn't. Faerie is obv preferred with Trini. Up to you but not knowing the meta, I'd jam Crypts and risk hitting Chalice @ 0, since it's a pretty rare play you make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogger42

Faerie vs Crypt... it depends. Faerie is nuts against Reanimator. Crypt is still pretty good, but often gets Forced. I wouldn't bring Faerie in vs Storm, though, because mostly Storm's effects work off of # of things in the GY, not specific cards. Like Cabal Ritual - you'll want to wipe the whole GY to slow that down. And even Past in Flames - Crypt keeps them from storming off completely, Faerie might get their 2 tutors if you're lucky. They still get all their cantrips.

The other thing to consider with Crypt is if you run Trinisphere - which your list doesn't. Faerie is obv preferred with Trini. Up to you but not knowing the meta, I'd jam Crypts and risk hitting Chalice @ 0, since it's a pretty rare play you make.

---

Thanks for the advice, any thoughts on my main deck?

I do not see any plan to get rid of X/2's that ruin our day (DRS, Mentor, Pyromancer, whatever) outside of 4-mana spells (chances are you'll escalate Defiance at least once every time you play it).

I'd recommend:

- Sin Prodder
- Thunderbreak Regent (or Avaricious Dragon)
- Sulfur Elemental

+3 Two-mana removal of your choice

And I don't think I would even board in graveyard hate against Storm... Your Revokers and Trinispheres do far more at hindering their plan. I would blindly name LED with the first Revoker, Petal with the second. I would remove the 2-mana removal and planeswalkers (+ another 4-drop) to fit them in.

---------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogger42

Or I can just go away, if you don't want to hear what I'm trying to say. I think I'd just rather do that, at this point.

---

I hope that isn't true.

I agree with your points on consistency for a deck that fails to manipulate it's top-deck, but I am more open-minded about using 8 or 9 cards x 4. You mentioned scenarios where Sudden Shock is better than Magma Jet. In a similar way, Hanweir Garrison is situationally better than Goblin Rabblemaster against Punishing Fire decks, but Rabblemaster will always be the preferred threat against Storm-combo. This sort of builds on my previous point about the kind of consistency this deck needs. It isn't important in most games that the 2-mana removal I draw be named 'Sudden Shock' or 'Magma Jet' or 'Flame Burst'. What is important is that I can rely on starting with or drawing a 2-mana removal spell in the early turns.

So I agree with you that having 1 Magma Jet in the deck and concluding 'Well, I have the deck's removal taken care of!' is foolish, I am in less agreement that all the cards should be x4 or you're doing it wrong. As a corner case argument against that thinking, cards like Extirpate or Slaughter Games are more effective when every card has 3 other copies in the deck. Same with things like Meddling Mage. (I realize none of those cards are major players in Legacy)

Either way, I welcome the dialogue. :cool:

frogger42, I think this is an interesting conversation about deck design and it should be happening somewhere. You shouldn't just 'go away' because you are in the minority here.

That being said, I'm also in agreement that while the 24-9 lists might homogenize games, they do not necessarily lead to optimal decklists.

What has also not yet been brought up in this discussion us the kind of selection/sequencing that is available to stompy decks. It is often the case that a 7 card opener is not necessary to win the game (unlike most blue decks where the 7 maximizes the power of Brainstorm and Force). The mulligan is an incredibly powerful card selection tool if you are able to play normal games of magic on 5 cards. In the same way, sequencing benefits from a wider choice of cards. If I play a T2 moon and have 3 ham sandwiches left in my hand, I'm probably better off if they are all different rather than all the same (for a card that is not always a 4of).

If your cards are all as close in power level and effect as possible, you are making less meaningful decisions per game. Things like mulligans, imprinting on chrome mox and sequencing start to matter a lot less.

There is also the argument for a diversity of effects. I've been messing with a vintage stompy list recently, and at one point I was playing 3 Torch Fiend 3 Sulfur Elemental. I would much rather draw 1 of each than two of one on average. There are plenty of these kinds of cards that do not necessarily get better in multiples.

Then there are indirect consequences such as the relative ease with which an opponent can play around the outs of our 24-9 deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolyps6

What has also not yet been brought up in this discussion us the kind of selection/sequencing that is available to stompy decks. It is often the case that a 7 card opener is not necessary to win the game (unlike most blue decks where the 7 maximizes the power of Brainstorm and Force). The mulligan is an incredibly powerful card selection tool if you are able to play normal games of magic on 5 cards. In the same way, sequencing benefits from a wider choice of cards. If I play a T2 moon and have 3 ham sandwiches left in my hand, I'm probably better off if they are all different rather than all the same (for a card that is not always a 4of).

---

Mulliganing into into gas I tend to find happens more around G2-3. A lot of the players at my LGS switch decks. And SCG Opens, GPs, you're realistically not going to know your G1 which cards are your ham sandwiches. I think in the rare instance that you know your opponent's deck for G1, and need to mull into something, either it's a bad MU, and you have to accept that every deck has its weakness. Or two, that maybe you are running the wrong cards in your MD. Sure, there are some MUs where Swords to Plowshares stinks, but you have to accept it given its power level. That might be a distant 3rd possibility.

My play style is a bit different - I've run a lot of decks that can't afford to mulligan (I brew weird stuff a lot) so I aggressively keep a lot of hands. So I don't use the mulligan all that much. Even so, that's one shot you have to "filter" your deck, and it comes at a huge expense, potentially costing you the game before you even start (ie if your 6 and 5 have no lands). The deck when it plays correctly, will play like those old 1998 decks - no cantrips, no fetches, etc. I think a decent maindeck will run those generic cards - like Flametongue Kavu, or Sudden Shock - and if you happen to be weak against tokens or something, now you have your games 2 and 3 to SB against them. Trying to be strong against everything all the time isn't going to happen. I think you have to hedge your bets, make tough decisions, and realize what in your meta you'll be weak against, and see if it's worth compensating in the SB to have a shot at that round.

And personally, I'd rather run 4 Sudden Shock over Magma Jet or a 2/2 split. My reasoning? Shock kills token generators right away (Y Pyro and Mentor), is almost impossible to Counterbalance, and kills SFM / Mother of Runes no questions asked. That's what I expect in my meta. It's not the "right" call necessarily all the time, but it's that kind of decision-making that you should be making before you sit down. And if Shock is "weak" vs Storm or something? Eh, it's not totally dead G1, and I'll just side it out games 2 and 3.

And another good reason to play Imp Recruiter. Even having just Revoker and the Nalaars opens up your lines of play immensely. It allows you to jam random niche 1-ofs and have no significant drawbacks in drawing your 1-of "oops, bad in this MU" guy. A great card, though not $200 great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CovenantElite30

Thanks for the advice, any thoughts on my main deck?

---

Hmm...
I'll be honest, I don't like Thunderbreak Regent. And for a few reasons. 1 - It's not a prison piece. It's ability is passive, it's not a proactive card; ie, it doesn't affect the opponent, other than being a vanilla beater, until the opponent decides to do something.
I'll actually say something weird and suggest jamming 4x Pia and Kia Nalaar, or whatever the card is. Why? It's still 4 power, it's also difficult to remove like Thunderbreak (it'll take a few spells to kill 3 dudes) and it's more proactive. It gives YOU the option to activate, and it's an incredibly powerful ability - get a 3 mana shock. Kill SFM, kill DRS (which you want to do under a Blood Moon). The drawback? It's legendary - but - you still get 2 more tokens when you cast Pia #2. So instead of 8 power in 2 Dragons, you get 6 power in 2 Legendaries. Very minor drawback, when you think of it.
It also eats extra Chrome Moxen, Chalices, etc. I honestly think 1 Pia is ideal - if you have 4x Imperial Recruiters - but whatever, 4 will do in a jiffy.

For all those other 1-ofs... I actually think it'd be cool to consolidate into 4x Flametongue Kavu. Seriously! It removes a blocker, other than Goyf, and will get your Hanweir / Rabblemasters through, help you generate more tokens. I think it's super underrated.

As for spells, up to you. I'd just jam something like Pyrokinesis, since you don't run Trinisphere. Fiery Confluence eats your tokens when you want to remove a blocker. Sudden Shock is also decent, like esp if you see a lot of Mother of Runes in your gaming store.

Just some thoughts, and whatever doesn't work this week, can be switched out next week.

If we're talking consistency, then running 4 Pia and Kiran is the worst thing I've ever heard.

Also, I remember running FTKs a few years back and they were highly underwhelming. The biggest problem is when they have an empty board and you have FTK in hand and you can't do anything. You can't afford to sit on your hands with this deck. Again, consistency.

On Imperial Recruiter: He's okay. Nothing special. Just a 1/1 that finds a dude that your opponent can counter. He gets better when you start hitting the late game, but with this deck if you haven't won by then then you've probably lost.

frogger, is it true that you are mostly an angel/geddon/etc stompy player? If that is the case those decks aim to play a much longer game and the consistency stuff matters a lot more. In the red decks you can basically win a game with your opening hand. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I'm more of an admirer than a player of either archetype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogger42

@square_two - you said you'd probably not jam the 3-4 copies of a (non-essential) card in an actual tournament. Why not? Is it because it's Legendary, too high on the manacurve, or just "eh." I'm just trying to bring up the point that, if you want to talk competitive construction on these threads, your deck has to find some consistency. From my little bit of deckbuilding experience, if you're struggling to find those 1-2 cards to fill those last 8 slots, the deck isn't really going to be competitive. You should have about 4 cards you want to jam in there, and limited slots; you should be making the hard decision of "these are all really great and powerful cards, but I literally don't have the room for X and Y." Throw them in the SB or more likely just drop them altogether.

---

What I meant was that, perhaps there is a new legendary card that costs 2RR (think like, Pia and Kiran). To test whether it is as good as I think it is, I could see myself testing with a full playset just to see what happens when it hits the board. I don't think I'd ever run 4 of a legendary card at 4cmc. If it was a different deck and the card was Thalia (the old one) then that is a different story since it acts as an early lock piece instead of being just a threat, and it comes down early enough that you really want to see her in your opening hand most of the time.

I think forcing full playsets isn't going to be optimal in a lot of situations. Yes, having only playsets is technically the best way to see each individual card in a deck without filtering, but what if the best configuration for this deck is 9 or 10 3-drop threats? The true optimal configuration for a meta (which is impossible to evaluate, at least until we have super duper AI) might lean towards 5-9 of a type of card, or perhaps 2-3. At least that's what I think.