[Deck] Dragon Stompy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandax

Haven't tested torment either but it seems bad to take a turn off to play this at any point in the game.

---

I could literally list hundreds of small, corner cases. But the easiest would be when you already have creatures in play and ready to attack, and your opponent drops TNN, Skull, (active)Mom, Griselbrand, or anything large enough where it's blocking won't kill it normally, but Wither reduces it to ineffectiveness. You untap, play Torment, swing. Be more than happy to "take a turn off" to keep attacking.


EDIT: Deathblade decks run 4 TNN, and 8 mana dorks. Unless you drop Moon T1 on the play through Force, banking on it to deal with TNN by itself will probably not work out as often as you would like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

I could literally list hundreds of small, corner cases.

---

I don't think you could. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

The easiest would be when you already have creatures in play and ready to attack, and your opponent drops TNN, Skull, (active)Mom, Griselbrand, or anything large enough where it's blocking won't kill it normally, but Wither reduces it to ineffectiveness. You untap, play Torment, swing. Be more than happy to "take a turn off" to keep attacking.

---

So it's good at suiciding your team into a Griselbrand so he's just a 3/3 flyer? Or at making your opponent pay :4::w: to bounce and replay Batterskull?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

EDIT: Deathblade decks run 4 TNN, and 8 mana dorks. Unless you drop Moon T1 on the play through Force, banking on it to deal with TNN by itself will probably not work out as often as you would like.

---

I bet it works as often as Everlasting Torment does. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

I don't think you could. :tongue:

---

You would be incorrect. But then, it seems you think I need to prove something to you. Which also would be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

So it's good at suiciding your team into a Griselbrand so he's just a 3/3 flyer? Or at making your opponent pay :4::w: to bounce and replay Batterskull?

---

Griselbrand can only block one creature. If the rest are enough to kill the opponent, yes. I'd happily do so. And if Torment is in play, no matter how many times your opponent may bounce and/or replay Batterskull, it wont gain them life. If you are allowing them time to do so when they are not gaining life, then you probably are playing sub-optimally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

I bet it works as often as Everlasting Torment does. :wink:

---

While I dislike being baited, I'd dislike it more if people reading this thread were mislead by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Both TNN and SFM present real obstacles for this deck. If you think that what is shaping up to be the best, and most popular version of a deck running those cards that runs a minimum of 8 T1 ways to stop Moon effects, and 8 T1 creatures that let them play through Moon, is just not going to be able to cast it's spells vs you, you're overly optimistic.

I look forward to your tournament reports and analysis that proves me wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandax

Just thought I'd leave this here. Big thanks to Julian23 for crunching the numbers!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f71fd601de.jpg

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

---

I'm surprised by a few of those statistics. Against show and tell (non grixis version) I'm 100% with about 5 matches and I played against food chain in about 5 games pre and 5 post sideboard and I'm 100% there too.

Thanks for posting them though, it's handy to compare hoe different versions of the deck fare against various match ups.

Yeah my own experience is a lil different but it's great to see so well put together

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysdai

I'm surprised by a few of those statistics. Against show and tell (non grixis version) I'm 100% with about 5 matches and I played against food chain in about 5 games pre and 5 post sideboard and I'm 100% there too.

Thanks for posting them though, it's handy to compare hoe different versions of the deck fare against various match ups.

---

Have you seen the number of matches - This data is far from being in anyhow relevant statistically. Sometimes the data is based on one match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

You would be incorrect. But then, it seems you think I need to prove something to you. Which also would be incorrect.

---

Come on - You suggest a very wild card with very limited uses and then say: "I don't need to prove anything to anyone."
That's fair but then you have to accept that anyone can critisize your suggestion.
As for me I think Torment is a 3 mana do nothing card with no influence on the field. I would rather play Meekstone against TNN than this (and I would never play Meekstone and Chalice in the same deck).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hofzge

Come on - You suggest a very wild card with very limited uses and then say: "I don't need to prove anything to anyone."
That's fair but then you have to accept that anyone can critisize your suggestion.
As for me I think Torment is a 3 mana do nothing card with no influence on the field. I would rather play Meekstone against TNN than this (and I would never play Meekstone and Chalice in the same deck).

---

I didn't suggest the card. I do think it merits testing though. I didn't say I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I said that I could come up with hundreds of corner cases where the effects of Torment could apply. He said I couldn't. Not going to type out a huge amount of useless data to prove a point to anyone. That I will admit to. The suggestion wasn't being criticized. He was taking potshots. Trying either to appear knowledgeable about something he couldn't know about, or trying to appear clever by throwing out quips and baiting an argument. As evidenced by comparing Torment to Deathblade resolving TNN through Moon effects. A situation that I do have experience with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hofzge

Have you seen the number of matches - This data is far from being in anyhow relevant statistically. Sometimes the data is based on one match.

---

My thinking is that we could develop it where we have a graph for the main variations and update it every so often so that we can have a rough idea of how each variant fares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

I said that I could come up with hundreds of corner cases where the effects of Torment could apply. He said I couldn't. Not going to type out a huge amount of useless data to prove a point to anyone. That I will admit to. The suggestion wasn't being criticized. He was taking potshots. Trying either to appear knowledgeable about something he couldn't know about, or trying to appear clever by throwing out quips and baiting an argument.

---

Funny, cause I can literally list hundreds of posts I've contributed to this thread between your last one in 2007 and your most recent ones this month.
You know what's come up a few times in between 2007 and last month? Everlasting Torment!
And anyone who mentions it eventually stops because other cards have a more significant impact on a larger portion of the meta-game.

You saying you could come up with a list of a hundred corner cases is equivalent to you saying nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

Funny, cause I can literally list hundreds of posts I've contributed to this thread between your last one in 2007 and your most recent ones this month.
You know what's come up a few times in between 2007 and last month? Everlasting Torment!
And anyone who mentions it eventually stops because other cards have a more significant impact on a larger portion of the meta-game.

You saying you could come up with a list of a hundred corner cases is equivalent to you saying nothing.

---

Congrats? Should I be impressed that you post a lot in this thread? I mean, I'm not. Because saying you have hundreds of post in this thread is equivalent to you saying nothing. I am impressed how quickly you've gone on a tangent, boasting about a post count, and relaying my dates of entry. And I'm equally unimpressed by your appeal to do what everyone else does. Your insistence that other cards have more impact on the meta is equivalent to saying nothing. I could name hundreds of cards that would be playable in the deck you could say the exact same thing about.

Although he could have been a lot more tactful, I have to agree with Ace on this one. Torment being effective requires that you have a developed board and are staring down a very specific threat, and that you have an answer for that threat in addition to everlasting torment (a sweeper to kill TNN for example). Our deck often requires us to pitch cards or take land heavy hands with the hopes of resolving one or two critical lock pieces and then winning later in the game. I'd rather not have a card in my deck, even post board, that does as little as torment does on its own.

Also ensnaring bridge + threats with reach is already a much more effective answer to TNN/batterskull/etc..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinkfrosting

Although he could have been a lot more tactful, I have to agree with Ace on this one. Torment being effective requires that you have a developed board and are staring down a very specific threat, and that you have an answer for that threat in addition to everlasting torment (a sweeper to kill TNN for example). Our deck often requires us to pitch cards or take land heavy hands with the hopes of resolving one or two critical lock pieces and then winning later in the game. I'd rather not have a card in my deck, even post board, that does as little as torment does on its own.

Also ensnaring bridge + threats with reach is already a much more effective answer to TNN/batterskull/etc..

---

Good answer. Nothing wrong with discussion and opinion on differences. Saying a card shouldn't be discussed because you've dismissed it is not only bad form, it's bad for further development.

On your last sentence. I've been trying to get someone to explain to me how this works. If you have Bridge, and they have TNN, and/or Skull, you can't attack unless I guess you have a flier with power 3 or less. So you are depending on a few cards to win. Sin Prodder barely counts, but may get a few points. Confluence, and Chandra. It's a pretty anemic clock. And a deck with TNN is not only going to have countermagic, they are going to have ways to find answers to Bridge. I guess I just can't see killing them before they can do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

Saying a card shouldn't be discussed because you've dismissed it is not only bad form, it's bad for further development.

---

I'm going to take your words out of my mouth, and then hopefully we can stop bickering.
I never said a discussion of Everlasting Torment wasn't warranted, just that the hoops required to make it effect the game are not better than aiming for what this deck does best (play Blood Moon on turn 1).

For the sake of argument... yes, resolving both Everlasting Torment and Fiery Confluence past an opponent with counter-magic will kill True-Name Nemesis. It is also likely to wipe or significantly weaken your board. It is also likely the opponent plays more than one TNN and you'll have to assemble both cards through counter-magic for each copy the opponent plays. Meanwhile each of his 4 cards is extremely live while all duplicate copies of Torment are useless. But if you only play 1 then it's difficult to assemble the 'game-not-losing' combo.

Which leads into QQQ's question about Ensnaring Bridge as an answer to TNN... He's right, it's not. It basically delays the game until they deal with all copies of bridge, you reach a point where you cannot keep less than 3 cards in hand, or someone goes to draw a card and cannot. The Stompy player basically has to already be ahead or have a favorable board state to eek out a win.

For example... I have 2 Sin Prodders in play with 3 cards in hand and pass the turn. Opponent plays TNN and passes with an otherwise empty board. I draw and attack, play Bridge and a land. From that point I can still get in damage and hide behind bridge, but it all starts to falls apart if he plays another creature.*

Which returns us to the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make initially: Some matchups and board-states are unwinnable. In my opinion, any scenario that requires Everlasting Torment to get out of is not worth the space or effort. If I focus my strategy on winning in the first 2 turns against TNN decks, I will have the same or better chances than if I focus on winning the long game (which we're still likely to lose!).

In the last few months, Sergi and Ace of Jacks have both been testing Everlasting Torment. If either are still following the thread, could you share your experience with the card?


*Even here, I forgot about Prodder's triggered ability which is likely to make it harder to hide under a bridge...

Ok. So though I'm certain it will be met with the same disdain, let me present what I've been testing for such circumstances.


I play a pretty stock Rabblemaster version. It's not set up as well as the versions with Bridge main to attempt to chip damage people out from behind Bridge. I do run Bridge, but it's in the SB for the usual matchups.

I think most would agree that running Dragons main works out poorly far more often than well right now. And since this version needs something for Control, specifically Blade Control, what I've been doing is running 2 Stormbreath Dragon in the side(in those 2 Torment slots I was talking about). Also for DnT, unsurprisingly. Which allows me to run just 2 Sulfur in the board. But the Dragon really can't be killed by either deck. And since it doesn't come in against 4C/Deathblade, where all Moons stay, I still get access to Sol Lands to power it out. Mainly Esper and Patriot Blade, and the new faux Miracles decks popping up. Yes, 5 mana is still a lot vs DnT. But you need 5 to cast Confluence a lot of the time. And I've learned to favor mana-heavy hands against them anyway. And I've found that much like Confluence against these Blade decks, it most often actually resolves. There is too much they have to contend with in the early turns for them to sandbag counters. Against Esper, the version running 4 Snapcaster, I actually keep 3Sphere in. Which almost universally hurts them worse than me, though that's not the case against all builds. But it is another card that one way or the other facilitates late game bombs. You just have to structure the early turns more aggressively, assuming that you will have to race TNN if it lands, and play knowing Stormbreath will allow you to do so.

Can you share full list / sideboard?
Do you just board in the two Stormbreath?
What do you take out?

For what it's worth, I like Stormbreath MUCH better than Torment. :tongue:

Bridge isn't an answer to true-name on its own, but for me it's often been very effective at buying time to just resolve a moon which shuts off decay if they're playing BUG. If they are on grixis I make resolving chalice on 2 a priortity to shut off grudge/smash to smithereens. I have had the board state of several bridges stopping multiple true-names into an eventual moon win many times online.

As far as winning the game goes, as many others have pointed out we have a lot of great threats with "reach," chandra, quicksmith, koth ult, sin prodder's trigger, etc.. As I previously stated it is a fundamentally different deck philosophy to play 4 bridges main, your threat base is geared towards dealing damage without swinging.

Also in the 50+ games I've played with this deck since the top ban I very, very rarely have issues emptying my hand to make bridge work. Most lists play 26+ mana sources, 4 of which involve pitching a card.

With the caveat that the list is obviously unfinished:

4 Goblin Rabblemaster
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Simian Spirit Guide
3 Sin Prodder
3 Hanweir Garrison
2 Chandra's Phoenix

4 Fiery Confluence

4 Blood Moon

3 Chandra, Torch of Defiance

2 Trinisphere
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Chrome Mox

11 Mountain
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors

2 Phyrexian Revoker
2 Sulfur Elemental
2 Trinisphere
4 Ensnaring Bridge
4 Leyline of the Void
1 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Stormbreath Dragon
1 Chandra, Torch of Defiance


Still working on SB slots for a meta greatly in flux. And the 2 Phoenix are my main deck compromise for grindy decks. Still definitely in testing phase. Regent was dying to Push too often. Haste almost makes up for the small body. Chandra and Confluence get it back. Attacks through Bridge over blocks.Trades with Delver. And I really wanted flying in that slot. Copter was better. But once the meta got to the point that main deck 3Sphere was warranted, I didn't have enough Red cards for the consistency I wanted. Still might go back to 2 of those.

Boarding vs EsperBlade would be something like:+2 Revoker,+2 Dragon/-4 Moon

And possibly one more 3Sphere, and/or Chandra if available. Possibly for a Confluence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QQQ

[List]

Still working on SB slots for a meta greatly in flux. And the 2 Phoenix are my main deck compromise for grindy decks. Still definitely in testing phase. Regent was dying to Push too often. Haste almost makes up for the small body. Chandra and Confluence get it back. Attacks through Bridge over blocks.Trades with Delver. And I really wanted flying in that slot. Copter was better. But once the meta got to the point that main deck 3Sphere was warranted, I didn't have enough Red cards for the consistency I wanted. Still might go back to 2 of those.

Boarding vs EsperBlade would be something like:+2 Revoker,+2 Dragon/-4 Moon

And possibly one more 3Sphere, and/or Chandra if available. Possibly for a Confluence.

---

I've always been inclined to cut 3spheres versus control because the game inevitably gets to a point where it isn't relevant.
I'd also argue that Blood Moons are stronger than Maguses because there are less ways to remove them.
Against Blade I'd cut 3sphere's first, then 1 or 2 Maguses if I needed more room. But I fully agree with what you're bringing in.

I'd be interested to hear more about the Phoenixes. :r::r: in the casting cost isn't the worst, but I'm curious if Pia Nalaar wouldn't serve you about as well.
Pia gives you a few additional tricks against Batterskull/Jitte (sac the token after blocks) even though you only get to do it once.

Have you tried 4 Chandras main? I strongly encourage you to try that if you haven't.



Here's what I'm trying out currently. With the same caveat as you:

4 Hanweir Watchkeep
3 Qal Sisma Behemoth
3 Smuggler's Copter
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Simian Spirit Guide

4 Bonfire of the Damned (although I'm thinking Rolling Earthquake is probably better)
4 Fiery Confluence

4 Chalice of the Void
4 Blood Moon
4 Chandra, Torch of Defiance

4 Chrome Mox
10 Mountain
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors

My sideboard would contain 4 Trinisphere and the rest I'm still working out.
The idea is to keep the opponent's board clear with Confluence and Bonfire/Earthquake and make my threats difficult to kill through conventional burn (bolt or P Fire) which is playable through Moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

I've always been inclined to cut 3spheres versus control because the game inevitably gets to a point where it isn't relevant.

---

Historically I agree. However Snapcaster is effectively neutered by 3Sphere. Without bringing in GY hate. That, in addition to it's blowout potential and protection against countermagic(as always) is why I like only against the 4 Snap matchups with decks that are optimized to abuse him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

I'd also argue that Blood Moons are stronger than Maguses because there are less ways to remove them.

---

Obviously that's true. But Moon can be pretty weak in general against this deck. And they don't have real blockers, so every threat is relevant. Magus also turns off all their removal. Yes, they can float and kill. But they can do the same vs Moon. The odds that they have open mana and the removal spell are far higher for Magus. But to me that's outweighed by the threat itself, and additional threats for each other Magus where redundant Moons are dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

I'd be interested to hear more about the Phoenixes. :r::r: in the casting cost isn't the worst, but I'm curious if Pia Nalaar wouldn't serve you about as well.
Pia gives you a few additional tricks against Batterskull/Jitte (sac the token after blocks) even though you only get to do it once.

---

I don't have much more at the moment on Phoenix. It's my substitute for Copter. Which I see you can fit without 3Sphere hurting your Red. Not being able to cast Mox T1 is absolutely crippling, which led to the change. Otherwise, with the 6 token producers I was very happy with 2 Copter. I will say that I have been sorely disappointed in Pia every time drew and/or cast them. To me it's the most overrated card in the deck just above Prodder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

Have you tried 4 Chandras main? I strongly encourage you to try that if you haven't.

---

Yes. Not only is Grixis Delver the most popular deck generally, it's even more so around me. And it's the one version that Chandra is just bad against. YP, TNN, Gurmag, Bolt, etc. That's the vast majority of the reason. That is actually the reason for my main inclusion of 3Sphere. Though we're not just talking Grixis there. Against Delver, every lock piece you drop in the first three turns greatly improves your chance of winning. Whether it resolves or not. If they Daze your Chalice, they're not dropping YP next turn. If they Force your Moon, they don't get to use that Brainstorm to find Bolt for your Magus. And so on. So when you start dropping real threats, they are out of answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

Here's what I'm trying out currently. With the same caveat as you:

4 Hanweir Watchkeep
3 Qal Sisma Behemoth
3 Smuggler's Copter
4 Magus of the Moon
4 Simian Spirit Guide

4 Bonfire of the Damned (although I'm thinking Rolling Earthquake is probably better)
4 Fiery Confluence

4 Chalice of the Void
4 Blood Moon
4 Chandra, Torch of Defiance

4 Chrome Mox
10 Mountain
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors

My sideboard would contain 4 Trinisphere and the rest I'm still working out.
The idea is to keep the opponent's board clear with Confluence and Bonfire/Earthquake and make my threats difficult to kill through conventional burn (bolt or P Fire) which is playable through Moon.

---

I haven't played Watchkeep. I found 3 Copter was too many with 6 token producers, and you have none. That would concern me. especially since you want to be actually swinging with all your creatures but Magus. I found the self damage from Earthquake added up too quickly with the deck's inherent self damage against the decks you want Earthquake against. But that was in limited testing. I did test Behemoth, and found that having to pay was a nuisance late, but made the card almost unplayable early. It's not bad, but it causes sort of an inconsistency in a deck that can ill-afford it.