[Deck] Imperial Painter

@ Drude1- Well I just did not assume what the Storm list is. I considered TES vs Ad Naus. Now yes across the board ad Naus is played more, but you did not give me that info. My answer accounted for the variability in storm builds. I know you wanted to prove the point that spending resources to accomplish other goals in the deck is sometimes the better play, with cards that are sometimes off the stock list(as an aside I have been running one main and one side Cannonist for over a year now). However I think in your zeal to prove me wrong you failed to look at that I did not fall into a trap. I tried to examine a situation in which I had imperfect information(unknown exact list) and provide a rational examination without assumptions. Within that framework I provided what I thought were valid reasonable option. None were correct or wrong I think, some where just better than others.

I do want to stress I have never said fringe cards, and cards that handle corner cases should not be included. Just that a rational, well thought out reasoning of why the card is better in a vacuum and how the cards utility applies to the general linear designs of the deck. Not doing this is moronic because the player is not properly assessing why to play the card and how it will affect future games and thus results.

Also I think people misinterpret what the Blood Moon means. In the situation you presented Cannonist is the same as a Moon effect. It works from a standpoint that it fundamentally alters their game plan. You choke off their resources( in this situation it is nonconventional in that the resource is spell count) but it works the same way. The combo lands and the game is effectively over. In that construct the Early moon "combo" is the same. In some ways you actually confirmed my point.

Where did you end up in Med School, what specialty did you end up in.

seth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phoenix4

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? ;)

---

Jeez look. Another interesting card idea!! (ok, I'll stop now). That's actually a pretty cool idea. I would also bring them in against miracles for sure, although you would hope to have a recruiter out or something in case their answer was StP I guess. Would you bring them in against Hymn decks?

As for broadcasting, Jack would definitely be the person to talk to. I can tell you that in the few instances that I've done it I used XSplit Broadcaster and worked really well. It's also free and auto-sets your broadcast settings in Twitch. Jack was able to set up a really nice looking broadcast page and was good about manipulating it during broadcast. Guys like Spawn and Romario are also good to talk to as they are really good about interacting with their watchers and are eager to help out. But, if you download XSplit it does kinda walk you through it pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drude1

Jeez look. Another interesting card idea!! (ok, I'll stop now). That's actually a pretty cool idea. I would also bring them in against miracles for sure, although you would hope to have a recruiter out or something in case their answer was StP I guess. Would you bring them in against Hymn decks?

As for broadcasting, Jack would definitely be the person to talk to. I can tell you that in the few instances that I've done it I used XSplit Broadcaster and worked really well. It's also free and auto-sets your broadcast settings in Twitch. Jack was able to set up a really nice looking broadcast page and was good about manipulating it during broadcast. Guys like Spawn and Romario are also good to talk to as they are really good about interacting with their watchers and are eager to help out. But, if you download XSplit it does kinda walk you through it pretty well.

---

Haha :D

No seriously, if you have access to Misdirections, try it out... If it wasn't for MODO, I would have 4 in my board, but 100+ tix a piece.... Daaaaaaaaaaamn :P

Potentially yes.... So far, I've used it against Decay decks, but yes, I've tried boarding it in against a monoB player, which looked surprised, when I Hymned him xD

Thanks - I will look into it :)

Misdirection can get huge value against BUG (decay+hymn), but that matchup is already great for us. Otherwise we can get through a combo tapped out (tho ssg+blast also works), but we can't cast it in any other scenario. I think it'll be too clunky to run it, especially 4-of SB. But it does seems like great fun, and maybe the payoff happens more often than not.. shall be tested!

Ripping into some stapled SB-cards for Rw, why do we run still 1/1/1 split of Canonist/Thorn/3Sphere? Asking since I'm feeling Canonist doesn't do way to much anymore, and while I like to side in Thorn against fair cantrip-decks, I don't feel like siding in 3sphere all too often since it doesn't affect their 3+ mana spells (always against UR tho). Thought about running 3 Thorns, but I'm sure there's a good explanation for why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morcrux

Misdirection can get huge value against BUG (decay+hymn), but that matchup is already great for us. Otherwise we can get through a combo tapped out (tho ssg+blast also works), but we can't cast it in any other scenario. I think it'll be too clunky to run it, especially 4-of SB. But it does seems like great fun, and maybe the payoff happens more often than not.. shall be tested!

Ripping into some stapled SB-cards for Rw, why do we run still 1/1/1 split of Canonist/Thorn/3Sphere? Asking since I'm feeling Canonist doesn't do way to much anymore, and while I like to side in Thorn against fair cantrip-decks, I don't feel like siding in 3sphere all too often since it doesn't affect their 3+ mana spells (always against UR tho). Thought about running 3 Thorns, but I'm sure there's a good explanation for why not?

---

I see the 1/1/1 split as a catch all situation, but maybe that's me? I used that configuration at Scandinavian Open this summer, and it felt good.

SSG + Blast doesn't catch Decay ;) Or did you refer to something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phoenix4

SSG + Blast doesn't catch Decay ;) Or did you refer to something else?

---

Thought about resolving combo in general. For the most part we got no problem against BUG and their decays, so I wouldn't eat up SB slots just for that :)

Ended up going to 2 tournaments this weekend, sadly did meh in both of them. The first was the Richmond monthly and the 2nd was Quest for Power. The only difference was I went -1 explosives, -1 REB, -1 crypt, +1 koth, +1 rip, +1 firebolt. I cut the crypt because I feel like RIP is slightly better in the non-eldrazi matchups which you would want graveyard effects in. Sadly I ran into only 1 such matchup this weekend but I don't know if having a crypt would have actually helped. The 2nd koth was just another large threat for, honestly I think that he should be something like a pia and kiran, shusher or an aether grid.

Richmond (3-2) :
2 - 0 TES
1 - 2 Goblins
2 - 0 Reliquary Retreat
0 - 2 BUG Delver
2 - 0 Miracles


Quest for Power (2-3):
0 - 2 ANT (I think our games lasted <10 turns total if I am remembering correctly. G1 he went off T2, G2 was me T3, and G3 he went off T3 or T4)
0 - 2 UR Burn/Delver (He was more burn based)
2 - 1 Aluren (I think I could have won this game in 2 by fetching a revoker and then pyroblasting the parasitic strix but I didn't really see that play at the time)
2 - 0 Esper Mentor
0 - 2 MUD w/Emrakul (This game was a complete mess. We had a judge try to resolve a blightsteel and emrakul being put into the graveyard situation while trying to explain to us how that interaction works. G2 I mulled to 5 keeping a painter, land x2, rip, rip hand. At one point in the game he played a forgemaster and I pyroblasted it with a chalice in play, my opponent verbally accepted that it had been countered but then when he was putting the forgemaster in the graveyard pointed out the chalice in play. We called a judge and he ruled in favor of my opponent :S.)

Damn unlucky. I've seen many judges rule in the casters side of the holder of the chalice says okay to the spell. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandax

Dat sentence, y'all


/thread

---

Eh?

Bloodmoon isn't a combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

Eh?

Bloodmoon isn't a combo.

---

A single card that hard-locks an opponent of the game with no way of breaking out of it is what many players consider a "one-card combo," because it wins you the game. If you land it against many of the format's most prolific decks, some of them cannot break out of it once it resolves. So in that essence, it gets "lumped" in with Painter's Servant and Grindstone as two of the deck's primary win conditions.

By definition, it's not a combo. But it gets labeled as such because of its game-changing impact once it resolves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Keller

A single card that hard-locks an opponent of the game with no way of breaking out of it is what many players consider a "one-card combo," because it wins you the game. If you land it against many of the format's most prolific decks, some of them cannot break out of it once it resolves. So in that essence, it gets "lumped" in with Painter's Servant and Grindstone as two of the deck's primary win conditions.

By definition, it's not a combo. But it gets labeled as such because of its game-changing impact once it resolves.

---

I totally get it, I just have problems with this argument. It's a combo deck because we define something that isn't a combo to be a combo is kind of missing the point... it also leads people down the wrong path with this deck....

Know your Role. It varries from matchup to matchup, that's what's most important. Lables like "Combo Deck" or "Control Deck" or "Aggro Deck" lead people astray. Knowing your role in the match it's far more important then what the generally accpeted name is... sometimes you need to Combo ASAP, sometimes you need to play aggressively and cast SSG's instead of turning them into mana. Sometimes the way you win is by playing the reactionary deck since ineventability is on your side and playing quickly means you'll lose.

IMO Mono-Red is better in some metas because it's more flexable and not as all in. Your better able to switch your roles.


Also about the 1/1/1 split. Cannonist isn't even that good right now.... it shined against Omnitell, but it's far weaker vs. the threats now... your better off with Thorns against Storm.

@Gundam- A Combo is arbitrary in magic. Tinker is essentially a one card combo. Replenish is essentially a one card combo. The decks are built to take advantage of the card in question. In this light Blood Moon is most certainly a "Combo" in the abstract. The Tinker and Replenish do not end the game immediately like a Tendrils or other Storm card, but the game is essentially over once they resolve. In many match ups Blood Moon is the same. To simplify deck theory it is easy to think that the deck should either try to assemble the Painter/Grind Stone or the Blood Moon lock. Both once assembled should swiftly win the game. the key is knowing in which match the current one should be assembled. If people require multiple cards working in tandem for a combo, then think Sol land, SSG into Blood Moon. Three very specific cards that function to bring about a game state that should be game ending for your opponent. Very much like a resolved Tinker. the game may not directly end at that time, but the sequence of those cards brings about its inevitability.

I do think there are some misconceptions about the mono red list. Yes you can say that there may be some metas where it is the better build( I can not come up with one, but it is possible). You can say that since it does not use E tutor it suffers less of the card advantage issues that you see as the deck goes long as every E tutor you cast you are down one card from your opponent. You can not say that the mono red list is less all in than the E tutor list. It is actually the complete opposite as tutors provide versatility and redundancy of all the cards in the deck. To say that the mono red list is more flexible is just wrong though as tutors add flexibility, and that is a fundamental principle of vintage magic, especially seen in the "Mana Drain" decks. From the combo pieces to the various answers in the deck. Most Rw lists will pack Revoker, Cannonist, SDT and mana sources that can all be found with the tutors. I also advocate a Engineered explosive main as it is a cheap catch all. With just these cards you can see that they E tutor form the Rw splash actually allows for the most versatility and selection at any point in the game. So that yes while you will often just the missing combo piece to help you win, they also oppen up avenues for maindeck answers providing choices and versatility at the expense of a card as the game progresses, thus making it less all in. The E tutor also opens up sideboard space to allow for more silver bullet answers.

About the 1/1/1 split that was from Jack probably 3 years ago( man I feel old typing that). the reason being they are all similar yet good in different ways. Trinisphere is often crippling for Storm players shutting down their cantrip engine. Thorn is the same way, yet they can interact much sooner with it in play. But it costs one less which allows for early disruption on our end. Cannonist is great bc it provides pressure and is tough to interact with once you have active blast effects. Some are better against delver lists, omnitell, storm, even burn. But they all have slightly different application with their own strengths and weaknesses. Also by splitting up disruption it is a nightmare for someone to call the correct one with Cabal Therapy. And with the E. tutor in the deck, you add the versatility of three copies of hate, but the selectivity to tutor the best one in each game state. It is possible that the split is no longer correct as the meta has shifted but that is the basis of the theory behind them.

About Misdirection and Fow, in theory they are strong cards. And I can see how they can lead to blowouts. The power level of them is undeniably high. However it is important to know that they will often times fail you as you need Painter out and on blue. that requirement was always a sticking point in the past and I know numerous people had tested this out, and it was never truly satisfactory. You may have to check the old thread for the run down on this. Depending on your meta and teh amount of Abrupt Decay, dedicating sideboard space to them and then using them as you would REB may be correct. I can see in a meta filled with GB decks this would be a great play. But once BUG is added you may find yourself being on too many receiving ends of a FoW pitching a fetchland for your taste.

Seth

I would actually play Canonist over the taxing artifacts, especially against storm. This is for several reasons. First, Canonist has a dual function of acting as combo kill and also acting as protection for your combo. I can't tell you how many times I have sequenced Canonist into painter for the auto win. With both out and mana up, your opponent can't play another spell without losing on the spot. Second, Canonist has legs. As per my arguments above, game one against Storm, Canonist can win by itself. It does damage while your opponent digs for an answer. Thus, Ad Nauseum is that much worse even if they do find an answer. I would drop trinisphere way before I dropped Canonist (although I currently still play both).
As for blood moon, I would totally agree that you can call it a combo only as much as you can call Rishadan Port or pithing needle a combo. Sometimes one card just totally screws up a deck. By definition though, it's certainly not a combo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@drude- What is your definition of a combo then? Yes risidian port and a land is a combination of cards. Much like two lands into grizzly bears is a combo. But at what distinction do you think something becomes a combo? I think establishing this is important as I would hate for you to think I was calling you moronic if I argue against your statement. Knowing what ones definition makes the language of magic work. You can see above for my definition of a combo but again this is an arbitrary distinction

Seth

Well, broadly I would define combo as any "combination" of cards that have a synergistic effect in order to win the game. The biggest distinction for me is that blood moon does not win you the game. It is also a single card. Honestly, I also don't really think the distinction is that important, other than for the sake of argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sroncor1

but the game is essentially over once they resolve.

---

IMO: That sounds more like a prison element then a combo element when described that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sroncor1

I do think there are some misconceptions about the mono red list. Yes you can say that there may be some metas where it is the better build( I can not come up with one, but it is possible). You can say that since it does not use E tutor it suffers less of the card advantage issues that you see as the deck goes long as every E tutor you cast you are down one card from your opponent. You can not say that the mono red list is less all in than the E tutor list. It is actually the complete opposite as tutors provide versatility and redundancy of all the cards in the deck. To say that the mono red list is more flexible is just wrong though as tutors add flexibility, and that is a fundamental principle of vintage magic, especially seen in the "Mana Drain" decks. From the combo pieces to the various answers in the deck. Most Rw lists will pack Revoker, Cannonist, SDT and mana sources that can all be found with the tutors. I also advocate a Engineered explosive main as it is a cheap catch all. With just these cards you can see that they E tutor form the Rw splash actually allows for the most versatility and selection at any point in the game. So that yes while you will often just the missing combo piece to help you win, they also oppen up avenues for maindeck answers providing choices and versatility at the expense of a card as the game progresses, thus making it less all in. The E tutor also opens up sideboard space to allow for more silver bullet answers.

---

I don't really want to start this whole battle about Mono-Red vs R/W all over again. There are pros and cons to both... and access to silver bullets isn't inherently more flexibility. It's more certainty since your game plan is pre-determined more often. But access to Tutors comes at a cost, and sometimes having more SSG's and Spot Removal is better.

The power level of the silver bullets has declined some lately with the meta shifting away from Omnitell. Which is why I think it's worth thinking about if running tutors is worth it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sroncor1

It is possible that the split is no longer correct as the meta has shifted but that is the basis of the theory behind them.

---

Yeah that's basically why I suggested that Cannonist (while still a fine card) has lost some of it's luster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drude1

I would actually play Canonist over the taxing artifacts, especially against storm. This is for several reasons. First, Canonist has a dual function of acting as combo kill and also acting as protection for your combo. I can't tell you how many times I have sequenced Canonist into painter for the auto win. With both out and mana up, your opponent can't play another spell without losing on the spot. Second, Canonist has legs. As per my arguments above, game one against Storm, Canonist can win by itself. It does damage while your opponent digs for an answer. Thus, Ad Nauseum is that much worse even if they do find an answer. I would drop trinisphere way before I dropped Canonist (although I currently still play both).
As for blood moon, I would totally agree that you can call it a combo only as much as you can call Rishadan Port or pithing needle a combo. Sometimes one card just totally screws up a deck. By definition though, it's certainly not a combo.

---

Cannonist is pretty bad at stopping storm from going off since it's pretty easy to get rid of without costing them much of a tempo investment. Additionally I wouldn't count on having REB/Pyro in your hand vs Storm (unlike Omnitell where they can't interact with your hand) and your auto win scenario sounds like "win more" to me. They have plenty of ways of winning without ever casting Ad Nauseum, but taxing tends to make those other paths harder too.
I agree that having legs is great against storm... ON second thought the answer is that you should be playing more Revokers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drude1

Well, broadly I would define combo as any "combination" of cards that have a synergistic effect in order to win the game. The biggest distinction for me is that blood moon does not win you the game. It is also a single card. Honestly, I also don't really think the distinction is that important, other than for the sake of argument.

---

IMO one of the worst things you can do to someone leaning magic is start describing decks as "Combo" or "Control" or "Aggro" and leading people down the path of thinking of EVERYTHING in those terms. When you simply the game that far you lose important insight and details that make all the difference when you are actually playing a match...

Edit: To clarify Combo Control and Aggro are terms for the roles you play, but I don't think it's good to describe decks or cards with those descriptions. There is such a thing as an aggressive brainstorm / aggressive FOW.

Why is this combo thing even a topic? Literally everyone should understand that Blood Moon is not an actual combo but a single card. It is just many times referred to as such - tongue-in-cheek - because it mostly does what combos do: wins the game upon resolution. It's pointless to debate if it's a combo (it obviously isn't) but it's perfectly accurate to say that Imperial painter is a combo deck that aims to resolve Blood Moon.

For discussions sake and as a reaction to lot of eldrazi brewing happening right now: Keep in mind that in addition to Blood Moon, also Painter's Servant stops Eye of Ugin from finding creatures. People miss this interaction pretty much always unless they have had it happen to them before.

Indeed, why is the combo-thingy even discussed? There's arguments for Blood Moon being name a combo or not, call it whatever you like. It's pretty meaningless thing to bash each other about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

Cannonist is pretty bad at stopping storm from going off since it's pretty easy to get rid of without costing them much of a tempo investment. Additionally I wouldn't count on having REB/Pyro in your hand vs Storm (unlike Omnitell where they can't interact with your hand) and your auto win scenario sounds like "win more" to me. They have plenty of ways of winning without ever casting Ad Nauseum, but taxing tends to make those other paths harder too.
I agree that having legs is great against storm... ON second thought the answer is that you should be playing more Revokers...

---

I don't agree that Canonist is bad against storm, but I do agree that it's become a bit lackluster in general. I never find myself siding it in as I don't find it relevant enough.. I mean, what else than storm/HighTide or other spell-combos is there? Thorn or Sphere do just as much, if not more in those matchups anyway. I do understand it can serve as protection, but I think it craves a bit much setup to be worth siding out something for it. It's not easy to get rid of, and it doesn't really shut things off as they still can play their creatures and sorceries on their turn, and intants at yours.. and you only got so many blasts. I remember siding it out a lot too when mainboarded during the Omni-reign.

I'll test a 2nd Revoker in its place for a while (SB), as it's been awesome lately and also functions against storm!

I do think discussing the definition of terms is important. Ensuring that everyone shares a common language is fundamental to having an intelligent discuss. Drude you can back me up with this with respect to medicine, but having the common terms understood allows free exchanging ideas and allows for short hands that everyone understands. So while I see and understand arguments that Blood Moon isn’t a combo, the important part is that the language we use is well defined. For me it is shorthand to talk about the deck and a way I see it. A clearer, and more specific and accurate way would be as mentioned earlier a deck with two primary avenues to victory, first a 2 card, six mana, colorless, creature based combo that wins without using the combat zone and a deck with a strong prison type element that works by denying colors as opposed to a true mana denial, taxing strategy. But that is justa lot of shit to type out.

The same can be used for how we define decks. If you look at the previous posts, we have all used Storm and yet what we are all thinking about has been different and leads to different viewpoints. I am as guilty as everyone with this. However Storm is the mechanic and as a group we may have some ideas of the cards in said list, it can lead to differing views. I reflexively think about TES as it is the most explosive and powerful, yet more fragile than subsequent Ad Naus based lists. However to be fair someone could think of the High Tide based deck is as Storm, although they are rarely played anymore. So when I was posting earlier and making decisions I was thinking about a deck with Burning Wish and the card options available. In that light I agree with other posters that in that light Cannonist is not as strong due to the outs they have in their board. However if you mean the Ad Naus lists on SCG, with no maindeck way of removing hate, then yes canonist is the card to have when playing Storm. We love to use short hand but I do think sometimes we are all saying the same thing, just confusing each other bc the definitions and meanings of the words aren’t consistent.

It is within this framework that defining combo is important to allow clear communication. As a result moving forward I will not refer to the Blood Moon as a combo. From my viewpoint it is, but a more correct statement would be a prison element. While this makes talking about the deck a tad more long winded, I do think it will avoid any confusion. And for my part in said confusion I am sorry.

@ Gundam Guy- If people feel that the meta has shifted and there are metas where the mono red list is stronger then I do think that the debate for which variant is stronger should be addressed. I will most likely always fall on the side of the Rw variant but I do think that it isn’t a scared cow and should be constantly addressed. I think the issue is the myth that the monored list is more flexible just bc it runs more main deck removal and using SSG over Lotus pet. Tutors allow for branching decisions as the game progresses. The Mono Red list with no tutors and less fetch lands( and in turn less shuffle effects) has a more predetermined game plan after it is cut bc the cards are already sequenced. It isn’t just the access to silver that allows the flexibility, it is the constant ability to change the plan as the game progresses. To do so the Rw variants sacrifice mana stability(increased susceptibility to Wasteland and Non basic land hate) and some small card advantage issues(due to the inherent CA issues with the tutor and the occasions they get stuck in hand without the correct colored mana). Tutors much like the cantrip shell allow for greater card selection as the game progresses so that you increase the odds of getting the card you need for any situation. It is the basic idea why a deck like Miracles can run 1-2 copies of Wear/Tear or other answers and still have a reasonable hope of drawing it in a given game/situation where it is needed and relevant. The tutors allow for more choices thus flexibility within the confines of the 60 cards that are included in your deck. You can however make the argument that excluding the E Tutor allows more cards in the deck, which would affect the options in the 60 cards, but the flexibility after the draw actually goes down without the E tutor.

Seth

As for Canonist, the only advantage that I can see something like trinisphere having over Canonist is that, if your opponent wants to remove it and go off on the same turn, trinisphere potentially slows them down 1-2 mana. And, as Seth pointed out, if they are on a TEPS list then they can find creature removal with a wish. On the other hand, Canonist again has legs so it is beating down as it is denying them their game plan. We are also able to fetch it with recruiter. And it provides the protection for our combo that I was talking about before. And yes, I guess it does also have the downside of being white, so you need the proper mana available; but it also costs one less than 3-sphere.

As for defining Blood Moon, I guess you could say that it is important to define it in the context of being able to have the same conversation about it. Technically, it is definitely a prison element vs a combo card. But there are certain MUs where I am definitely going for the Blood Moon lock before I would even consider trying to put my combo together, the same way I would always go for Canonist game 1 against Storm. That is also where the e.tutors shine and the exact reason I could never see myself playing the mono-red version. Turn 1 e.tutor into Blood Moon for turn 2 or e.tutor into ensnaring bridge with a top out against Sneak and Show in response to a show and tell has happened too many times for me to give up on e.tutor at this point. I have nothing bad to say about the mono-red lists either, as honestly I have never played it before. I've just never liked being mono black or mono red in this game as you just don't have any answers to some cards/strategies and I absolutely hate being completely helpless in a game.

Finally, I also wanted to comment on whoever it was that just started playing rest in peace over tormod's crypt. Against, Eldrazi decks, their effect is identical. In fact, I would say crypt is better because you can pull off the double welder/double grindstone trick and mill yourself and then mill them while welding in your crypt for the win. I do still play both though as RIP is definitely better against Goyf/deathrite/delve strategies as well as a back-breaker against dredge.