Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
You guys do realize that in metas where moon effects are strong, the e tutor list is the best list right? The increased tutors overall can drive your magus count above ten. With those numbers your chances of resolving one by turn two go up drastically. For some reason people get caught up on the fact that e tutor is dead in hand if you have a moon out. The point you are missing is, if you played properly, the moon itself wins you the game as the rest is academic. A couple dead cards in hand doesn't matter there. The ability to have that consistency and utility is the reason to run the tutor. For some reason people try to do too much with the deck. It can have different plans but it's a combo deck and really every card should be for that. It just happens and has always been that the two combos are Painter/Grindstone and Blood Moon.
I know I haven't posted much but that is mainly Bc the thread gets derailed with talk about mox opal. That card has no place in the deck. You do not run enough artifacts to trigger it reliably and it does not allow you to say turn one moon and limits your lines to get a turn one painter with blast back up turn one. These lines are incredibly important, especially against storm and the other decks you mentioned.
I will try to get a full post up sometime soon. But seriously guys, stop suggesting terrible cards. Let's pretend we understand game theory, how to play magic, and the fundamentals of the deck in general.
Seth
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
FWIW,
I've been doing extremely well with the R/w Enlightened Tutor list.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
http://mythicspoiler.com/ogw/cards/warpingwail.jpg
How do we like this one?
Kills almost every single creature in legacy, key exceptions being Mentor, Reanimate/Show and G.Guide/Eidolon. Burn is better overall in that regard, but there's also some good sorceries that it stops: Terminus, Hymn, Storm-stuff, Reanimate-stuff, Elf-stuff, Show'n'tell and cantrips/discard if you really want to. Probably some more.
Drawback is that you need City/Tomb, then again you don't need anything else to cast it. Probably SB, if at all. Thoughts?
And @Seth: true, Rw is a better Mooner than Mono, miswritten by me. Anyhow I still hate packing tutors against decks packed to brim with daze, fow and removal, and my meta consist of almost nothing else. Also ssg > petal in this regard.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
@Morcrux: So yes, I can imagine Magus has gotten better. I just never liked it because it wasn't very good against lands (punishing fires) or any deck playing red (various delver and young pyro decks that were really popular for a while). But like I said, I do think we are going to see another shift in the meta and Magus seems like it is definitely in a good place right now. Having said that, STORM, reanimator and Show & Tell decks still see a lot of play in my area, which is why I can't totally get behind a mono-red list. I also like the turn one tutor into blood moon for turn 2 (which also gets around discard).
The one thing I loved about Leyline is that, with a blast in hand, it was pretty much GG against storm. Their only answer is bounce or goblins, which we usually have an answer for. It was also a good turn 0 play against decks like burn, belcher, etc. There's no worse feeling than having a grip full of hate and then lose to Storm or belcher on turn 1 or 2. I appreciate you at least giving the opals a shot. I will admit, there are some occasional awkward hands. But it can also be very explosive sometimes. I mostly like them because I feel like it makes my white cards less stranded post moon and I don't get mana screwed as often. And just to be clear, I am still running 3 lotus petals as well.
I've never played with Scab-Clan before, and the idea of a one sided Eidelon seems pretty good. But I also have to agree that 3cc (including RR) seems like she would be a little late to the party a lot of times. Think about how many times you aren't able to drop Jaya until turn 3-4-5. Still, it might be worth a shot. Just wish it was at least R2 so it would be a little easier to get out. Slaughter games actually wasn't bad against Storm when I was playing black during the Omni-Tell days, so I'm wondering if Jester's Cap could be playable. Again though, seems super slow unless we hit one or two accelerators. They also then usually see it coming. I'm looking for something early, the idea being that they are 1-2 turns faster than us and I want something that can slow them down on the first 1-2 turns. Funny, I feel like I'm talking myself back into just playing Leyline again.
As for the Warping Wail (and other new colorless cards for that matter), just remember that, as Scroncor1 pointed out, one priority is to get moon out ASAP, which shuts this card off. Not even petals, monkeys or opals can play this at that point. I don't see it making the grade mostly because of that. Although, one or two in the board wouldn't be terrible against MUs where you might be siding out some number of blood moons (eg burn, goblins, storm). It does also kill DRT and gets around mother of runes. Hmmm.....
@Scroncor1: I agree with the bulk of your post. The point of the deck is indeed to win with combo and/or lock opponent out with blood moon. That doesn't mean that there can't be any room for innovation and that you can't try new lines of play. If the deck was 100% about just comboing out, then why do people play Jaya, revoker, bridge, etc? To be frank, the original iteration of the deck hasn't done much in a while. And while you piss and moan about "derailing" the thread with new ideas or card options, you offer nothing new or innovative and provide nothing constructive. Is every idea that anyone posts on here superstar? Obviously not. And I will be the first person to admit that some of the choices that I have tried and wrote about have ended up being crap. However, I've also written about cards like pyrokinesis and sphere of law. And others have introduced cards like Hedge-Mage, Assemble the Legion, and sudden shock, which have now become staples in a lot of people's lists. I have been playing with the higher artifact count/opal build for several weeks now and it has actually been playing very well for me. So I thought I would share my experience. Yes, there are hands where I'm pissed because I have a sol land, blood moon and an opal that at one time was a SSG and now I can't play my moon on turn one. But I've had more hands where I drop 4 cards on turn one, including blood moon, without the use of a sol land. I've also frequently been able to play furnace into top into opal to hold up a blast, play my tutor to fetch moon, or spin the top on turn one and have 3-4 mana ready on turn 2. I have also won many games with the grid, including against Miracles, where I just ping them and keep their threats off the board and they cant do anything about it. Am I commited to playing those cards forever? Obviously not, because I'm willing to morph the deck a little to fit what's happening around me and adjust to what isn't working for me anymore.
What do you have to offer? Are you just going to post on here every couple months and tell everyone how stupid they are for throwing out some new ideas? And it's not even like you are open minded about it. At least Morcrux can say he tried it and didn't like it, but still respects the idea. You just come on here and call everyone an idiot and tell us how you are some game theory expert. Give me a f*@king break. At least have a little tact when expressing your opinion, or you are nothing better than a troll on this thread.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
@Morcrux- I can't remember the last time daze mattered in a game to be honest. You should have no difficulty playing around the card. With respect to FoW, a good player will never cast it against your tutor. If the counter the spell you fetched at worst it is card parity which is fine. The fact that you play so many counters and removal means you need redundancies and the increased chances of multiple combo effects throughout a game, thus the Rw splash.
Unless a meta is flush with Wasteland and Back to Basics the downside to your mana base is so low. There is no card that the mono red lists get to run that the splash can not. And they lose copies 5-7 of Grindstone, 5-8 Painter, 2-4 of Ensnaring bridge, 5-8 Blood Moon, and any silver bullet sideboard effects you choose. For the last seven years I can only come up with one meta that the mono red may have been better, but that was before Show and Tell, and Eldrazi on a stick.
I still hold to the fact that most people should still be slinging the deck with a more stock list. Most of these new cards people post are basically a red card that has an effect. That is all. they do not consider what they would need to remove, changes to the deck to maximize the cards potential, or the general fact that wizards just fucking hates red besides cheap burn and shitty hasted creatures. the newest card I use in my list is RiP. Most legacy decks are static due to internal synergies. The power level of a card has to be so high, we don't see them much in magic anymore. Most cards are trash
@Hollywood- So happy you continue to find success with teh deck brother. i was talking to Jack, may try and get to NYSE this year. You thinking about coming down?
@ Drude- yes I will basically troll the thread. You are absolutely correct in your assessment that I have added nothing to this thread or the deck in general. My issue lies in a fundamental fact that most people do not understand the way the deck works. Without that fundamental understanding( which is why I am always stressing it) you can not advance the deck. To be fair Assemble the Legion came from me. I have tested all the red planeswalkers as they come out. Usually they sucks so I do not mention them. I will not see a card and just say "Guys is this good?" Just because I don't mention it doesn't mean it isn't tested. Most things just suck. I understand that. the reason cards like Jaya and revoker are used is because the actually do fit in with those two game plans. Jaya and Revoker both serve to help tie up resources along with clearing the way for the combo. They are great utility creatures that also have other fringe cases. If people want to add other cards to the deck then they should be able to say, yes card x is better than Jaya. That has not happened. So I could perform falatio on every idea that comes out or push people to realize that most cards are garbage and spending posts talking about cards that are clearly bad due to poor understanding of the deck, probablity, and game theory is moronic.
Seth
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sroncor1
stuff
Nothing wrong with saying ideas out loud. I dislike hyping card before testing as much as anyone but it's not reasonable or sustainable to bluntly state that all new ideas suck except yours. You didn't type that but that's how the message can easily be read.
For example to me it's quite clear that this is a Blood Moon deck first and anything else second. If Blood Moon doesn't make an impact in your meta, there is pretty much no cimpetitive reason to play this. I also see that this is the best Blood Moon deck available as the curve is conveniently low so you are not absolutely critically screwing yourself up all the time like you do with other Tomb/City decks. I'm not sure if everybody - including you -has understood that but I see no point in bashing people who want to try out something new. This game evolves, after all. It's easy to see and say that Grids and whatnot are not what this deck wants to do but as long as people win with them I don't mind. And then there's the thing that some tricks might just be very good in certain local metas or against some problem decks. This includes stuff that you haven't likely thought of, heard of or tested in any way.
I really dislike the attitude of "I have tested everything so I know what's terrible" because no one can say that for real.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
@Seth, ofc opponents doesn't counter Tutor. It's free card disadvantage. Even Jack always writes in his reports that they're sided out against Miracles or Delver because they suck there, so why keep them in main when meta is chokefull of it? The differences between the Rw and Mono are slim, except for the sideboard. Against shitloads of counterspells you hardly win by turn 4 as planned, and in this long run it's slighly better to draw 2/2 ssg's, and not downing your card count too much early on with tutors. Ssg can also be surprise-pitched against Daze when tapped out, while petal can be played around. It's meta call, really, usally I prefer Rw so chill.
I respect your introduction of the Rw build and how you like to keep things fundamental, but please.. most people here are good players, and no one has intention to fuck up the deck. Actually most ideas are bad, but many bad ideas are needed to obtain good ones. Don't go ahead and call them morons without even testing tech first, just because you were the original inventer and want your version to be written in stone.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
I don't know how you can say the mox opals aren't viable when the ur lists have been running them successfully since opal was printed as far as I know. It'd be different if he hadn't made changes but he upped his artifact count and honestly getting metalcraft turn 1/2 isn't very difficult. You give up percentages of T1 moon but your mana gets much better every turn after.
I love warping wail but don't see it making it into the 75. Most opposing creatures are stopped by bridge and I'd rather have bolt or sudden shock for most small creatures. Being able to counter miracles is cool but I don't think it's needed. That matchup is already winnable. Sweet card, just don't think it adds enough herel
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mapson
I love warping wail but don't see it making it into the 75. Most opposing creatures are stopped by bridge and I'd rather have bolt or sudden shock for most small creatures. Being able to counter miracles is cool but I don't think it's needed. That matchup is already winnable. Sweet card, just don't think it adds enough herel
Also
Quote:
Terminus, Hymn, Storm-stuff, Reanimate-stuff, Elf-stuff, Show'n'tell and cantrips/discard. Probably some more.
But yeah.. probably not seeing play in painter still.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sroncor1
@ Drude- yes I will basically troll the thread. You are absolutely correct in your assessment that I have added nothing to this thread or the deck in general. My issue lies in a fundamental fact that most people do not understand the way the deck works. Without that fundamental understanding( which is why I am always stressing it) you can not advance the deck. To be fair Assemble the Legion came from me. I have tested all the red planeswalkers as they come out. Usually they sucks so I do not mention them. I will not see a card and just say "Guys is this good?" Just because I don't mention it doesn't mean it isn't tested. Most things just suck. I understand that. the reason cards like Jaya and revoker are used is because the actually do fit in with those two game plans. Jaya and Revoker both serve to help tie up resources along with clearing the way for the combo. They are great utility creatures that also have other fringe cases. If people want to add other cards to the deck then they should be able to say, yes card x is better than Jaya. That has not happened. So I could perform falatio on every idea that comes out or push people to realize that most cards are garbage and spending posts talking about cards that are clearly bad due to poor understanding of the deck, probablity, and game theory is moronic.
Seth
So others have beat me to it. But I still have to say that you assume way too much. You think people on this forum don't understand the deck? Really? That's why we talk about new cards or new ideas? I can reassure you that I understand the deck just fine. I have done well in moderate and large tournaments with the deck and usually 3-1 or 4-0 any daily that I play in with the deck. My win percentage online is well over 50%. To be honest, I am mostly trying out new things because I'm bored with the stock list and I like to experiment. People's motivations for this game are not all the same. If I were taking this deck to a legacy GP I would definitely reconsider the opals/grid until I got more play time with it.
Also, If we weren't talking about new cards or new ideas this forum would be 18 pages long instead of 180+ pages long and you would have nothing to whine about.
I am totally fine if you would say, "regarding the more traditional list, I think this". But I don't even see that from you. All I ever see is "you guys don't get it and are thus moronic".
I appreciate the early work that was done with the list, dating back to when the Japanese first introduced the combo. But there's a reason that you and Jack aren't still playing Active Volcano.
I'm even fine with you saying something isn't a good idea as long as you are at least a little constructive about it. I certainly value your opinion. But doing so while belittling or insulting other people on the forum is what leaves a bad taste.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Just to be clear I have never said anyone is moronic. I may attack ideas and the thoughts behind them. But I do not attack the people. I may say people are wrong and I may question a fundamental understanding about the deck and magic theory. If I ever call people bad players I include myself in that group. For some reason people think that if you attack their idea you are attacking them or if you call their idea dumb or lacking that you are implying they are dumb or lacking. But that is not how intellectual discourse is done. You can argue with my tact or lack there of, which I am ok with. Often times I am an asshole, but as any of you can attest I am always happy to go over the basics of magic, esp in person.
Ok I will try amore constructive way. With respect to Mox opal. It may work in a ru she'll, but imperial painter is not painted stone. Here is where the fundamental differences in the decks come from. We play a fast combo deck. The core is built around two game winning strategies. Mana denial with moon effects and an efficient 6 mama two card combo that wins without combat. While the painted stone strategy also uses the combo how they get there is different. They trade the explosive linear approach coupled with mama disputing that we have for the hard counters and card draw manipulation of blue. That fundamentally changes the deck construction and it's avenues to victory. So while on the surface we both attempt to grind them out. How we get there is different. Yes we sometimes grind out games but like a true combo deck we trade consistency for the variance of those explosive early combo turns. As such our critical turn is over one turn earlier than them which is huge in legacy. Basically think of this as the difference between a four and five mana spell( not perfect but it makes a clear point). It is within this framework that the mix opal fails. It is worst in the early turns. Often times you have three artifacts on the board you are basically winning anyway. The inability to augment the moon play also makes it weaker than SSG, Chrome Mox, and lotus petal. To maximize the effectiveness of the card the core of the deck needs to be reworked to take advantage of nearly 20 artifacts in your main deck. The ru painted stones have more opportunity to do this due to a slower clock and better card selection over a long game. We lack that. Our fundamental turn is sooner and for that spead we should be willing to sacrifice the card advantage and some late game effects that other decks have. They key should be to focus on the decks strengths, i.e. The quick combo. And that means dependable fast mama and tutors to ensure adequate redundancy.
Hopefully this is a little clearer in why from a fundamental stand point Mox opal should not be included in the 75.
Seth
Ps sorry for grammatical errors. I did this in an iPhone and I have fat fingers.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sroncor1
Just to be clear I have never said anyone is moronic. I may attack ideas and the thoughts behind them. But I do not attack the people. I may say people are wrong and I may question a fundamental understanding about the deck and magic theory. If I ever call people bad players I include myself in that group. For some reason people think that if you attack their idea you are attacking them or if you call their idea dumb or lacking that you are implying they are dumb or lacking. But that is not how intellectual discourse is done. You can argue with my tact or lack there of, which I am ok with. Often times I am an asshole, but as any of you can attest I am always happy to go over the basics of magic, esp in person.
Ok I will try amore constructive way. With respect to Mox opal. It may work in a ru she'll, but imperial painter is not painted stone. Here is where the fundamental differences in the decks come from. We play a fast combo deck. The core is built around two game winning strategies. Mana denial with moon effects and an efficient 6 mama two card combo that wins without combat. While the painted stone strategy also uses the combo how they get there is different. They trade the explosive linear approach coupled with mama disputing that we have for the hard counters and card draw manipulation of blue. That fundamentally changes the deck construction and it's avenues to victory. So while on the surface we both attempt to grind them out. How we get there is different. Yes we sometimes grind out games but like a true combo deck we trade consistency for the variance of those explosive early combo turns. As such our critical turn is over one turn earlier than them which is huge in legacy. Basically think of this as the difference between a four and five mana spell( not perfect but it makes a clear point). It is within this framework that the mix opal fails. It is worst in the early turns. Often times you have three artifacts on the board you are basically winning anyway. The inability to augment the moon play also makes it weaker than SSG, Chrome Mox, and lotus petal. To maximize the effectiveness of the card the core of the deck needs to be reworked to take advantage of nearly 20 artifacts in your main deck. The ru painted stones have more opportunity to do this due to a slower clock and better card selection over a long game. We lack that. Our fundamental turn is sooner and for that spead we should be willing to sacrifice the card advantage and some late game effects that other decks have. They key should be to focus on the decks strengths, i.e. The quick combo. And that means dependable fast mama and tutors to ensure adequate redundancy.
Hopefully this is a little clearer in why from a fundamental stand point Mox opal should not be included in the 75.
Seth
Ps sorry for grammatical errors. I did this in an iPhone and I have fat fingers.
Ok, here's something we can work with....
Although I want to bring up a couple points. First, I was a little confused. Are you saying we are the explosive combo deck and R/U painter is the grindy deck? Having played with and against the R/U version many times, I would say that the exact opposite is true. Although I guess that depends on whether you are saying that dropping Blood Moon is "comboing out". At least they are typically able to assemble their combo a lot faster than we are. They are using manipulation as well as transmute artifact and Intuition to get their combo pieces together ASAP. We tend to try to slow the game down and choke our opponents resources first with cards like Ensnaring bridge, blood moon, etc and then go off under the safest conditions possible (although some people are YOLO all in and try to just drop combo pieces ASAP). They try to drop a welder turn one and Intuition into their combo for the win on turn 2-3 with LED and FoW backup. In their deck, they are using multiple artifact lands, opals, leds, etc to accelerate as quickly as possible. Now, I didn't love the feel of the deck when I played with it. But what I did like was the opals, as they not only accelerated the mana but could be used over and over again, which felt really strong. Thus, as I was thinking about incorporating opals into shortcake for fast AND consistent mana, someone else mentioned the grid.
Now I want to ask you this. What do you think of playing Koth in the main? Have you ever done it and why? For me, the grid works in a very similar fashion. In a MU such as Miracles or 12-post, where it's either very difficult to keep your painter on the table or the combo just doesn't work, the grid acts much like a koth. You combine dork beatdown with consistent pinging to win the game through damage. The grid has the added benefit of taking out creatures and does so at a much faster pace than Koth. It also can't get destroyed by damage (which is why most people have given up on Koth). The grid is also searchable with tutor. My artifact count in the deck is currently at 25, so it's not that difficult to turn on both opals and the grid quickly.
Here's another question for you, from a general game theory perspective. Let's say that it's game one and you know that you are playing against Storm. You are playing this list: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=91253 (which I know YOU would never actually play due to it's non-linear cards)
This is your opening hand:
1 x Arid Mesa
1 x Mountain
1 x Goblin Welder
1 x Imperial Recruiter (or even Painter)
1 x Pyroblast
1 x Enlightened Tutor
1 x Lotus Petal
You are on the play. What is your first play or line of play and why?
To me there is a very clear line and I assume you will answer the same way; but then I want you to think about your suggestions about how everyone should play this deck and whether your play aligns with that strategy.
Then tell me if you still don't think that there is room for innovation in this deck.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Well realistically I'd love to play Mountain into welder. The place Petal until I see their turn and probably Eot for canonist. At least I've done this play a few times seeing T1 underground sea and a ponder.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
First to the hand, I do not think that it is a simple decision. Which Storm list and who the player is matters a lot. A random scrub with storm, versus Bryant and Royce and the rest of that crew would change my play. The deck list actually does not matter as you can and should make your decision from the information available. But my gut would be to mull that. I do not see you winning against a average to above average draw against storm. However if the Recruiter was a Painter's Servant I would consider keeping. No matter what the hand loses to a first turn storming. However a painter in hand would at least give you a fight with one disruption spell turn two with possible combo turn three. So the hand with Painter I would keep most likely, especially if they are on a storm list that hopes to get value from Cabal Therapy. That being said mulling down to six, especially with the new scry, is not wrong in this situation as Goblin Welder is largely a dead card anyway so you are already on a 6 card hand. If I did keep it would be Mountain go. That way I have blast for cantrip, I do not expose my fetch land, and I would sandbag the petal. There is some thought to going for Cannonist to resolve turn two and laying the Lotus petal at that time. However you still die to first turn storm. With resolution of cannonist turn two you are untapping turn three with three mana and a recruter into Painterof Magus play. By that point your clock is probably 3 more turns. So I am not sure, again depends on the storm list. But I do not think this would be my first line.
1. Mull
2. Mountain, go
3. Fetch, Go e tutor into Cannonist on my second turn
All are viable and with the limited information the argument could be made for all of them. But I would first mull.
As an aside, I never said I do not play cards that are non-linear. I merely said the deck should remain linear in its goals. A small but subtle distinction. jaya, Revoker, and other cards are the def of non linear cards which I fully endorse. My sentiment is that the overall drive of the deck should be focused not muddled by trying to much. You want your deck design to be linear. Jaya and Revoker, EE, Tormod's Crypt and other cards all fit this bill and I have strongly endorsed them. You need these versatile cards to get out of sticky situations to ACHIEVE those linear goals.
I think there is some confusion when one uses the terms speed, velocity and consistency. To determine a decks speed it is merely goldfishing it. You do not worry about disruption. In that setting Rw is faster than a deck that relies on a 3 mana tutor or a 2 mana tutor. Now how you play it, that is were the changes come. I still stand by the statement that you a combo deck that gains immense tempo over other decks due to the ways in which we can create colorless mana faster than our opponents. this increases our tempo, thus increases the velocity of the deck at any time. I will always argue that the most advantage you have will be fast, consistent, and early combos because in those situations we are taking advantage of the tempo and faster velocity of the deck. As the game goes long, our deck gets worse. the added value of the sol lands drops once your opponent has 4 mana. That is the typical choke point, as once a deck hits that they can freely cast all their cards(although I admit this value is lower against a great number of decks). Trying to grind out and prolong the Grindstone has consequences. Without a Moon shutting down their mana(Thus the other combo already being on line) most decks that can interact will have better card selection and card draw engines online decreasing your value in your draws as the game progresses. The balance comes in finding that fine line between the speed of the deck, its consistency to achieve that speed, and maximizing the velocity within the confines of these two factors to ultimately leverage the win.
With respect to Koth he was used in the main probably 3 plus years ago. That was due to a meta where he was able to provide a a recurrent source of pressure that excelled in the land of Jace and rock style decks. Creatures became better and he failed to adequately protect himself. This in conjunction with the fact that he does not play an active role in the two combos(although I will admit he helps increase the immediate velocity if you untap with him which does have some value), he was dropped to the board. By the time Monastery Monk came out there was no place for him. I do not think he has been in my 75 for over two years though. But when he was used he was never more than a 2 of. I do think that the deck essentially has 3-5 slots that are variable and meta game dependent. I just always think Jaya takes one of those places. The rest are user dependent, they just should be able to describe why the cards fight within the above framework.
BTW that list is only about three cards off from what I play. I still think we should always use 4 Grindstones, and I would choose EE over his choice of mass removal, but otherwise the list is actually the same as mine except I also swapped out the 3 welder for the seventh blast effect.
Seth
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Looking at the list I glanced over the creatures its off by like six cards total, and probably wrong with 4 Recruiters. But still.
Seth
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sroncor1
t. It just happens and has always been that the two combos are Painter/Grindstone and Blood Moon.
Seth
Dat sentence, y'all
/thread
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
Wow....
I guess I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I didn't clarify what specific version of Storm I was talking about (it was NOT a burning wish version). I just assumed that when I said Storm, you would come up with the list that everyone typically considers the prototypical list (see the list with the title Storm in the last 20 T8s on SCG). Let's say that a friend or teammate walks up to you before your next match and says, "you're next opponent is playing Storm" and you then proceed to open with the hand I listed. I can tell you right now that that is almost a God hand against storm in game one. The only better hand is if Canonist was actually in your hand and you could play it on turn one. Uroborian basically got it right away (although I personally would hold up both mana so I can blast a turn one play if I need to. Either play is probably right though). Canonist is auto-win game one against Storm unless they actually go off before you can play it. You want to mulligan for a hand that somehow beats Storm going off on turn one?!? Which hand is that? More specifically, which 6 card hand is that? This hand holds a blast turn one into Canonist turn two GUARANTEED! I think you need to actually seriously rethink your game theory expertise. My original point was supposed to be that using all those resources in your hand to play Canonist goes against your idea of playing this linear game of combo only and you can actually benefit from thinking about alternative lines of play. But you actually can't see past the combo line. I think we just are going to have to agree to disagree on the merit of talking about different card choices or different strategies. But please reconsider the use of words like "moronic" when referring to fresh ideas, as I've been willing to refrain from using the word in this post.
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
So I've read the first few comments on page 182 (I think) and damn... :P
People are different, let's face it :D
I've tried the R/W list and if I search for my name on mtgpulse, I have at least one strong finish with it. That being said, the monoR list is closer to my heart, which doesn't necessarily (Spell check, please?) mean, that you can't try anything new with it..
As a matter of fact, I've tested 4 Misdirections in the board recently, and it kills people, when I play it. I thought about the MU's when I don't have a Blood Moon out and have the opportunity to combo my OP. The number one card that kills me (and the combo) in that spot is Abrupt Decay.. But adding the Misdirections to the deck, have proved to be favorable to me, since I can activate the combo, misdirect the Decay from my painter to the grindstone, pitching irrelevant cards and STILL have the opportunity to blast anything else that the OP might throw at me, now that the Abrupt Decay is not "the-sure-way-to-stop-the-combo"...
On another note: I've just collected the deck on MODO, and since I feel that there's not enough streaming with the deck, I thought I might try to stream some games. But I'm not familiar with that side of twitch, so I wanna throw a plea for help out here (Kap'n maybe?) to help me set up the stream? :)
Anyways, I hope that we can all just get along and make 2016 a nightmare for other legacy players? ;)
Re: [Deck] Imperial Painter
@ Drude1- You could call the lines I came up with as moronic, and that would be ok. the difference is that you blindly went in on a Cannonist play. Which is sometimes right, and often times right. What I did was run through scenarios and give reasons while I would take different lines of play. Storm beats Cannonist by itself and hiding behind it or Trinisphere isnt the answer always. i addressed it and examined multiple lines of play and the reason behind them. You failed to address the possibility of a turn one loss along with the fact that discard into bounce effects also loses you the game. Spending the resources is perfectly fine as the key role of cannonist is to open the window of time to allow your deck to win. This can be through shitty 2/2 creature beat down aor the combo. As always the combo is the fastest and the safest path to victory at that time. In your reflexive answer you give the storm guy 8-10 turns to find an answer. That is a lot. I never said I was a game theory expert, all I ever said was that I have a basic understanding of it along with math as I got a minor in it from Johns Hopkins. However if you actually read what I wrote and the reasoning behind it I am sticking within those confines. I can ensure you I have beaten better and more storm player than you. The difference is that my response examined the situation and looked at the game state in turns 3-5 to see what gave me the best avenue to victory. I did not work through a basic algorithm and hold to it without thought. Within this framework I most definitely "within my game theory expertise" whatever the fuck that means. You can wave your virtual dick around all you want and that is ok, but you should realize I gave you exactly what you wanted. A clear concise constructive statement about the possible plays and why some were stronger than others, but due to external factors none were the definitive best.
BTW the God hand against Storm isn't close to that. Regardless of the player or the deck it would be as follows:
City Of Traitors
City of Traitors
REB
REB
Lotus Petal/SSG- You can make the argument the SSG is stronger here
Painter Servant
Grind Stone
