Just call it 4c good stuff/4c lock/4c no blue or something like that.... no need to complicate
Printable View
Just call it 4c good stuff/4c lock/4c no blue or something like that.... no need to complicate
Those aren't names, they're descriptions, and not even very accurate ones. The deck isn't really a goodstuff deck; it's very much built around synergy. It's also not a prison deck, although with Chalice, Liliana and two recurring control elements it does come close.
I really like Dump Truck; it sound cool. Bulldozer kinda implies something with Helldozer or Taurean Mailer, and also it doesn't sound as good in my opinion.
If my prison deck classification is voted down, I suggest calling it "Landlock" which is simple and fairly descriptive.
But for now I stand by Punisher.
Damn. I could get behind this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moroklumpen
Dump Truck.dec has existed in Extended before and it runs blue. I don't think you can call this Dump Truck.
I think the chances of this deck being confused for some extended deck are pretty low.
We could also add an adjective on the front. Not the biggest fan of 'Punishing Dump Truck' but it is an option.
Seriously? Punishing Blue is such a horrible name, and isn't descriptive of the deck at all. As some have pointed out it just sounds like a blue control deck with Punishing Fire. Lock’n’Lands is pretty cruddy too, it sounds forced…all of this whole thing sounds forced and feels like Phillip and Niklas care more about making a name for themselves than the actual article itself. It’s still Aggro Loam, and bears enough similarities to deck design philosophy of the early builds to keep the name.
Dammit.Quote:
Originally Posted by (nameless one)
I do agree that "Punishing Blue" is a terrible name though. I'll probably either stick with writing down "Kronberger Special" on my decklists or try to hype up "Hoogland's Folly".
If you believe it bears enough similarities, you clearly do not play with the deck. Or you just have no clue on what you are doing....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissection
The deck doesn't want to aggro out and clearly does not need loam to operate.
I agree all names seem forced and what not but I also believe the deck should not be aggro loam.
"Kronberger Special" + "Hoogland's Folly" = Special Folly!!! WhorrayQuote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
Gosh darn it, you got me. I've clearly demonstrated that I've never played the deck and have no idea what I'm doing. Good job officer, keep at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilhas
Please correct me if I'm wrong (not being sarcastic, I would like to know), but didn't the deck originate from Extended? Green beaters + Crusher with Loam and Seismic Assault. I will admit, that's a very different deck to this one. That's slowly morphed into what we have today, and while different, has kept its name throughout. If taken literally, sure...you may have a point. But should we take every ridiculous name in Legacy seriously? Of course not, we'd be running around headless. My main point is that this shell has been known as Aggro Loam for long enough, a name change isn't needed.
I dunno...I've played non-blue decks for a while quite fervently, aggro loam included, and I just feel like this is an already established archetype that has simply been underappreciated since Khans. Now with a 'breakout' tournament, people are more concerned with stamping their name on it, rather than taking it forward. Why didn't Niklas ever bring up the name before? He's always come across as a pretty genuine guy in interviews etc, so I have this feeling it's more the work of Phillip.
I will say, I'm 110% behind Hoogland's Folly!
As much as I would like to see the Kronberger Special with a fun name, the above statement is the reason I'm still willing to accept being called "Aggro Loam" or "4c Loam".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissection
People should stop wasting their time thinking about a name for the deck. It is nearly impossible that everyone will agree on a name. Just copy Philips article, replace every "Punishing Blue" with whatever you like to call it, and read it again. A name does not win you tournaments. Better start practising "Aggro Loam" ;)
Wait until starcity has someone top 8 an event with it. I think we're going to see" 4-Color Loam Control"...if we are lucky! :-)
Ages ago before crusher existed. We rode a terravore after devastating dreams, and a chalice on 1. It was aggro loam then and creature count is about the same as now.
No need for a new name
Has anyone tried Trinisphere in the sideboard to combat Omnitell? As opposed to hate cards that use the stack, it shuts down any and all Omniscience shenanigans they might have unless they already have them in hand with at least three mana available. No Wish for instant kill in response to Sage triggers; no free bounce, no free Emrakul through Thalia (one particularly bitter memory from my Maverick days). I'm not sure how many we would need or what it would replace though; on the whole, a sideboarding guide for the most popular matchups would be greatly appreciated.
Trinisphere works, but if you're just looking for things to toss in off Show and Tell, Iona does the trick as well. Ethersworn Canonist, I imagine, would just work out to be the better card in almost every circumstance. It's cheaper (for matchups where you're not sandbagging it till they cast Show and Tell), it has legs, and it doesn't bone our own plan. All of those are very relevant considerations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moroklumpen
I do love Trinisphere though. So, if you can make it into a reality, I'd be thrilled, but I can't currently imagine just jamming Trinisphere into the sideboard and having it pull its weight.
Iona doesn't stop them from simply casting Emrakul, but I see your point on Canonist.
As a deck that banks on Mox Diamond, Canonist is arguably the best card to run against storm stuff, especially omni/tell. iamajellydonut mentioning canonist having legs is relevant as well.
I don't think Trinisphere is necessarily needed, as much as it's a home-run play. Same for Iona.
Hey thread, this is super late (was out of town all last week) but I took this deck to the last monthly Legacy tournament at ChannelFireball.
So, in the week leading up to the event I first played a Storm deck at a small local. Out of 13 players, 12 were on blue (with the remaining player on D&T) so I thought perhaps my deck choice was very bad. I decided to try out a Chalice deck, so at the next local I ran this. I sit down opposite Miracles in R1 and proceed to crush (Slaughter Games is actually really good when naming Monastery Mentor!). I'm feeling good about the deck, but proceed to be paired the following two rounds against midrangey green decks. In my third round, for instance, I played against Nic Fit... Is there any way we can beat a Sigarda? It just seems impossible to me!
I am undeterred, and decide that since CFB is typically dominated by Delver, Miracles and Stoneforge strategies this deck is still a good choice. I proceed to get trolled by DCI reporter...
R1
I go to time against Merfolk, and lose in extra turns. Not a lot to say here. It's really difficult to play well when you're super conscious of going to time! Definitely could have won this, I feel (Punishing Fire is insane in this M/U it seems).
0-1
R2
Monored burn. I sigh to myself when I see a Lava Spike while my opponent is shuffling. I lose 8 life from a Dark Confidant in G1. He has Price of Progress. Game 2 he has Price of Progress.
0-2
At this point I'm out of contention and would drop, but I decide to try to get more practice with the deck so I stay in.
R3
RGW Burn. Is this real, DCI Reporter? My opponent has a bad draw after mulliganing but he has two Price of Progress so I lose. Game 2 is similar.
I am pretty demoralised by now after having some complete non-games. But I decide to get more practice still since my friends I traveled with are all x-0
R4
U/R. G1 I make a t1 chalice off diamond. His deck is full of Delvers, Swiftspears, Bolts and cantrips, so I am feeling pretty good. I proceed to draw no way to actually close out the game for a long time and we just sort of carry on. What complicates things is that he draws 3 Price of Progress, so wins without casting any other spell (literally). G2 I kill a Goblin Guide and get out a Sylvan Library and am at a reasonable life total. My opponent just casts two Price of Progress on his turn.
I am now fully demoralised and drop to watch my friends play. What's the moral of the story here? Don't lose the first round of a tournament, otherwise you'll be put into the Price of Progress bracket :(
watQuote:
Originally Posted by cdnza
That's ridiculous. Merfolk is definitely a good matchup, but you got absolutely rolled for the rest of it. Reminds me of the gent who went 0-3 drop against Burn at GP Lille. Rounds one and two are definitely the most important regardless of what deck you run. Getting stuck in the dregs where Burn and Dragon Stompy lurk definitely leads to a death knell.
Anyway, to make this post actually constructive, you can usually manage to play around a fair Price of Progress. It can of course sneak up and give you a boot square in the buttocks, but usually simple stuff like keeping defensive Wastelands open and prioritizing the basic Forest are enough to keep you safe against blowouts.
I tried Trinisphere for a bit. Fun fact, the opponent can cast Dig Through Times though Trinisphere. Anyway, Canonist is just better unless they have no digs and a pyroclasm. Tho I'd actually argue for holding the first canonist. The deck has plenty of interaction that you can be playing out Thalia, Teeg, Chalice, w.e and all the bears lose to a single clasm so if the board already has 2 pieces of hate and a threat I'd keep the canonist/3ball/thalia in hand.
Burn is definitely a matchup I suggest people sit down and jam for a couple hours. IMO keeping a hand without chalice and one that requires more than 2 non-wasteland non-basics in play usually incorrect. Card advantage should not matter so feel free to mull to whatever too. Mox, Fetch, Dual, Chalice is stronger than Savannah, Knight, Zenith, Library, Wasteland, Loam, Thicket or whatever.