I saw that. It was very hard to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by igri_is_a_bk
Printable View
I saw that. It was very hard to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by igri_is_a_bk
Opening post updated
@Hollywood— Something you forgot to add about Macabre is that you can pitch it (RFGing nothing) to dodge Relic's tap ability as well. I'm pretty sure it has a place in the seventy-five given the current meta, but I don't necessarily think it's in the maindeck.
@Final Fortune— I'm really liking all of the ideas you're pitching (again). Some of the slots would need to be reevaluated a teensy bit (I'm thinking a 4/2 split of the correlated Nether Shadow/Phantasmagorian slot right off the bat), especially with opposing Surgical Extractions, Relics, and Extirpates in mind, but cutting six Baubles for 4 LED and 2 Desperate Ravings (which is strictly better than DA in Manaless Dredge specifically) sounds like it could be very good. I was playing Baubles in addition to an LED package as an anti-combo sideboard plan, but I'm not even sure the Baubles were necessarily increasing the speed of the deck in that config as the density of grave-synergistic cards decreased.
I could also see CotA replacing the Sphinx/FKZ package maindeck (which seems like the slot it would naturally replace if one were to wish to maindeck it), though I'd need to do some thorough testing before coming to a conclusion on that. This would then enable a Bloodghast package to be played in the 'board, although I'm still not sure one is completely necessary. So many potential things to do with the deck, I'm kind of excited. I'll have most of the day tomorrow free to test as well, so I'll try to see if I can come up with any conclusions. This deck still has a long way to go before it's really optimized.
Also, I'd just like to reiterate to the forum that LED should not be used as crutch against an unknown opponent/blue opponent if you play it maindeck like you would initially think; you play it like you would a Bauble if you're not sure you can resolve it. The difference between Bauble and LED though is that LED has the ability to be played in an all-in fashion when needed for some potentially broken turns (e.g. play LED, Probe, resp to Probe with SW cycle, resp to cycle by cracking LED and discarding at least one dredger, cast the Desperate Ravings you binned with SW activation and Probe still on the stack), in addition to a few other sweet benefits.
@ SCG KC Dredge Semi-Finals:
For what it's worth, an earlier Dark Confidant trigger revealed a Brainstorm. The first trigger for the turn revealed a land and Surgical Extraction. Alex had two lands and the Brainstorm in hand to stack the second trigger.
Agreed, the LED/DA engine (I agree Desperate Ravings is superior to Deep Analysis, but writing Deep Analysis is a matter of habbit so you'll have to excuse me) is arguably the most misplayed engine in Dredge because "bad" players have a tendency to play LED too quickly without Dredging into Deep Analysis first, stocking the graveyard with a second dredger or discaring counter spells with Cabal Therapies before playing the LED. Essentially, LED/DA's purpose is to accelerate Dredge into faster, undisrupted wins game 1 vs. the aggro-combo matches the stand a chance vs our DDD or combo and is more of a "sand bagging" strategy vs. aggro-control.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTrudeau
As far as replacing the Sphinx/Zealot package with the Chancellor, I don't think it's a really good idea because it reduces our explosiveness and the board position we gain from Sphinx/Zealt is much more relevant than from Chancellor.
Really, I think the questions Manaless Dredge needs to ask itself is "how do I accelerate my game plan and what cards become least desirable post-board vs. hate?" Basically, it comes down to comparing Baubles, Chancellor, LED/DA and I think there are a couple of other questions, like whether or not 4 Dread Return, 3 Sage, 1 Zealot is significantly better than 3 Dread Return, 2 Sage, 1 Zealot, what number of Phantasmagorians should you have if you're playing LED already and a really fundamental question that has been bothering me lately is whether or not the deck should be playing Dakmor Salvage and Bloodghast MD over Shambling Shell and Nether Shadow if you're playing LED/DA because if you "luck sack" both in hand or Dredge into it on your second turn you can develop a board position much more quickly.
I've also been wondering whether or not Desperate Ravings is actually better than Deep Analysis, because if you do play Salvage/Ghast MD you'd shoot yourself in the foot by randomly discarding Dakmor Salvage after Dredging so Deep Analysis may still have its place in that particular scenario.
The Deep Analysis and/or Desperate Ravings count is another question, because both you and I have looked at it from opposite angles. I've tried pretty much playing every copy of those cards as I could while you were playing less than 1 set.
About the only thing I'm really sure of right now is that SBing for Storm Combo is a fucking waste of time, Trap and Chancellor aren't enough to do dick shit to the match up percentage but SBing vs Reanimator seems to have a pretty positive effect on the win rate post board. I still think Chancellor is a pretty good SB card tho', the Daze effect makes a huge difference in match ups like Elves (don't laugh, it's a really popluar budge aggro-combo deck around here) where they have to forego their 1 drop and you're in a much better position to race. I'm also a really big fan of SBing Probe if you're not MDing it because it's pretty good filler and being able to check for hate vs. aggro decks that can't counter probe or make your Therapies slightly more accurate is awesome.
Sorry if some of that came off as rambling, hopefully tho' it'll open up some discussion or hard core gold fishing.
He was playing awfully loose though in such a critical game. I remember him flipping for Dark Confidant blind at a very low life total - a potentially lethal flip - when he could have Brainstormed or bounced it with Laboratory. Even though he hand multiple lands, his line of play was a little off given the scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaNDoMxGeSTuReS
It didn't matter, however, as the Dredge player completely missed his Bridge tokens and made several play mistakes towards the end of that game. It was just a mess overall.
I'm not so sure about this. The Storm match-up might be relatively weak, but it doesn't mean it is completely out of reach. Obviously, tearing apart their hand with Therapies (in conjunction with Gitaxian probe) is important, as is using attackers to dwindle their life total low enough where Ad Nauseam becomes more of a liability than anything else. I think it's important to have at least something relegated to improve the Storm match-up so that we can at least tilt the percentages even marginally in our favor.Quote:
About the only thing I'm really sure of right now is that SBing for Storm Combo is a fucking waste of time, Trap and Chancellor aren't enough to do dick shit to the match up percentage but SBing vs Reanimator seems to have a pretty positive effect on the win rate post board. I still think Chancellor is a pretty good SB card tho', the Daze effect makes a huge difference in match ups like Elves (don't laugh, it's a really popluar budge aggro-combo deck around here) where they have to forego their 1 drop and you're in a much better position to race. I'm also a really big fan of SBing Probe if you're not MDing it because it's pretty good filler and being able to check for hate vs. aggro decks that can't counter probe or make your Therapies slightly more accurate is awesome.
I don't think, however, that Dread Returning a Chancellor is benign against Storm. That's actually quite relevant and unless they spend a few turns (or more) trying to come up with an answer to it, their life total will dwindle and dwindle fast. I would straight-up Dread Return a Chancellor into play even if it means no tokens on my side the second or third turn if I had to.
I personally never do this. If anything goes out on my side, it's usually the Street Wraiths or Shambling Shells.Quote:
As far as replacing the Sphinx/Zealot package with the Chancellor, I don't think it's a really good idea because it reduces our explosiveness and the board position we gain from Sphinx/Zealt is much more relevant than from Chancellor.
The problem is, even though we can explode into ridiculous amounts of creatures at any given time, sometimes we just can't get to a lethal strike and a Storm player often does have the capability of 'going off' at any time. Chancellor ensures a complete shutdown for at least several turns and grants us the ability to do damage while staving off a goldfish at the same time. With four Dread Return, taking a turn or two to setup a game-ending strike while getting cover and some serious damage in from a devastatingly protective force like Chancellor in play is completely worth the effort of boarding into.
I'm just against L.E.D. and Deep Analysis all together, including Baubles and Desperate Ravings. Keeping the deck as non-interactive as possible seems like the best strategy. If the deck is already functioning powerfully on the premise of not playing virtually any spells, keeping that strategy going helps relegate many of an opponents' cards useless. And even if they have a Spell Pierce or Daze in hand for a Dread Return, most Tempo decks don't run a lot of lands, and it would force them to forgo playing threats or blockers and keep mana open - perfect for us.
L.E.D. seems like more of a liability than anything.
Phantasmagorian is probably one of the most important cards in the deck. I would never go any less than four. Open-handing one of these turbo-charges your ability to dump important cards like Ichorid, Shadows, Bridges, etc. into the graveyard without having to naturally dredge into them. It's a critical component of this archetype, so I'm on not on board with anything less than maxing out on a full set. Also, getting two 'interchangeable' Phantasmagorians is huge, as you can keep chaining them if you need to dump deep-dredgers into the graveyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTrudeau
I already know the answer to the Ghast/Salvage vs. Shadow/Shell problem after some testing a few months ago— Shadow/Shell is much better. The immediacy Bloodghast provides in helping resolve a DR on turn one unfortunately has a kicker in that you have to dredge two at some point, which kind of negates the whole thing. Shell is also very important in ensuring Ichorid can come back every turn, something a lot of people take for granted. In addition, I've done probably around fifty test games so far, and Nether Shadow has surprisingly helped win on turn two far more than I expected. The optimal number of Phantasmagorian is still up in the air for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Yeah, I'm only running two because it's strictly predicated on LED; every copy after the first is dead a large majority of the time. I could see 2 Sphinx/3 Desperate Ravings being better though (I'm hesitant to cut the fourth Dread Return).Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
I agree that siding in matchup-specific anti-Storm cards (Mindbreak Trap being the best example) is a waste of time, but I think boarding out the Sphinx/Zealot package for a Chancellor package while running LED could change things a lot. You're right in that Reanimator should be focused on more because it can be boarded against more effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Agreed, DRing Chancellor is usually game over against Storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
NEVER board out Street Wraith. Ever. Trust me on that one. I've experimented with boarding out Shambling Shell and I didn't like it as well, but that's at least an option (even though I think it's just worse than swapping Sphinx/Zealot and Chancellors against Storm).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
Keeping the deck non-interactive does not seem like the best strategy when there are faster decks out there. Again, LED doesn't even have to increase interactiveness with an opponent if you play it like you'd play a Bauble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
Phantasmagorian is still up in the air for me; I could see anywhere from zero-four being correct. I'm positive a set isn't necessary in the maindeck (especially if you're playing LED), but postbaord, running a set seems like it would be an excellent foil for Surgical Extraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
@forum— I've done about fifty test games so far with LED in the maindeck, and I've been comboing out on turn two more than I ever have before. I'm going to, at some point today, log one hundred games and post the results.
So, assuming everyone is looking seriously at L.E.D. as a faster combo finish, has anyone considered looking at running Obsessive Search as an option at all? I've been tinkering with running a full set of L.E.D.'s and splitting the Gitaxian Probe set apart at 2/2 (Deep Analysis and Search).
This way, if you go L.E.D. (UUU floating --> Obsessive Search (UU floating) --> Dredge --> Hit a Deep Analysis --> Flashback Deep Analysis (with the UU floating), you'd just explode all over someone...even on your first turn (if you're not playing against Islands). I'm not saying dropping L.E.D. and going for it all is the optimal line of play, but if you've got a feeling it could be and your opponent puts you on the play, that could be a catastrophic mistake on their part - one that could cost them the game. At the absolute minimum, it gives us some reprieve after sighing and knowing our first turn will be more than simply "Go."
I would still run Probe in the sideboard, though - at least.
@Kevin
Looking forward to seeing your results, really appreciate you putting in the time.
@Hollywood
Obsessive Search is just worse than Gitaxian Probe, because you can stack the LED trigger for the same effect and Desperate Ravings is worthless without LED.
As far as interactivity, I don't think the cards that replace LED/DA and make the deck less interactive are as valuable as the speed LED/DA gives you, it comes down to either Gigapede (which is garbage IMO) Dakmor Salvage and Bloodghast (which is redundant) Chancellor of the Annex (it's probably the only card worth its salt) or Gitaxian Probe and Baubles (which are just as interactive as LED/DA)
None of the alternatives are "that" good, and LED/DA just lets Dredge blow any deck without counter magic out of the water game one and at least gives it a fighting chance vs. storm combo by giving the possibility of turn 1 and 2 wins. It's also the only card that lets the deck actually mulligan, so in the event we do get stuck without a Dredger we can still mull for LED + Dredger and the opponent's can't just put us on the play game 2 any more as Storm combo without risking us dropping LED before they can Duress it away.
LED just changes this deck on a fundamental, strategic level where the rest of the cards that could take its place only increase the deck's effectiveness on small, redundant levels.
I really think 4x of all the core cards + LED/DA is probably the best set up for this deck as a default.
Edit: Actually Obsessive Search is just way too shitty compared to Cephalid Coliseum at that rate.
L.E.D. has no trigger; discarding your hand is part of its activation cost. I think you're referring to playing Probe and then cracking L.E.D. without passing priority. You can still play Probe; I'm simply iterating that you can increase the level of your explosiveness by including another card that interacts optimally both mathematically and functionally with Lion's Eye Diamond and Deep Analysis, respectively. You can also stack the Madness triggers at Instant speed off cracking L.E.D. - something multiple Probes cannot do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
I'm not saying Probe is worse, because it isn't (I play four), but Search seems like it deserves at least a look. We play without a single land, so finding any and all avenues trying to abuse discarding a card should at least be considered. Obsessive Search is really not that bad when you consider what its cost and function is - in addition to how well it interacts with L.E.D.
Also, Desperate Ravings dredges you two cards. Nailing a Search with L.E.D. and subsequently dredging into Deep Analysis nets you potentially three dredges.
I agree with this statement. I do believe L.E.D. lets this deck explode into realistically powerful starts on its opening turn and swings the Combo match extensively.Quote:
None of the alternatives are "that" good, and LED/DA just lets Dredge blow any deck without counter magic out of the water game one and at least gives it a fighting chance vs. storm combo by giving the possibility of turn 1 and 2 wins. It's also the only card that lets the deck actually mulligan, so in the event we do get stuck without a Dredger we can still mull for LED + Dredger and the opponent's can't just put us on the play game 2 any more as Storm combo without risking us dropping LED before they can Duress it away.
Cephalid Coliseum in a deck with no other support and an open susceptibility to Stifle and Wasteland is really no better than playing a card (Obsessive Search) off L.E.D., which still leaves you mana available to pay for Spell Pierce and Daze. Because this archetype is without lands all together, Cephalid Coliseum has no other support besides an L.E.D. for activation. Those are two completely different cards that require completely different conditions to be optimal. Obsessive Search seems more reasonable as a slot in this deck as opposed to Coliseum in that respect.Quote:
Edit: Actually Obsessive Search is just way too shitty compared to Cephalid Coliseum at that rate.
I'm not sold on it yet, though; I'm just opening up ideas. I'm probably just going to stick to trying the Deep Analysis and L.E.D. plan.
Goldfish stats are in. The list again:
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
4 Stinkweed Imp
4 Golgari Thug
4 Shambling Shell
4 Ichorid
4 Narcomoeba
4 Nether Shadow
4 Bridge from Below
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Dread Return
3 Sphinx of Lost Truths
1 Flame-kin Zealot
2 Phantasmagorian
4 Street Wraith
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
2 Desperate Ravings
I kept track of five things in each game: the number of cards in the starting hand, whether or not Lion's Eye Diamond was ever cast, whether or not Desperate Ravings was ever cast, whether or not Phantasmagorian was in the graveyard before casting Dread Return, and the winning turn.
All games played assuming I was on the draw against an opponent without countermagic/disruption. Note that this prerequisite didn't force me to auto-cast LED every turn one, as it wasn't necessarily correct to go all-in on turn one; in fact, I drew LED and never even cast it in a few games as I had the win otherwise. 'Winning turn' meant turns where I actually dealt the twentieth point of damage and not in a colloquial sense, like if I established a lethal board presence after having cast multiple Cabal Therapy. I never mulliganed hands with a dredger in them.
Counts:
Number of cards in opener:
7- 94
6- 6
Was LED ever cast?
Yes- 32
No- 68
Was Desperate Ravings ever cast?
Yes- 19
No- 81
Was Phantasmagorian binned before casting Dread Return?
Yes- 69
No- 31
Winning turn:
1- 1
2- 12
3- 38
4- 32
5- 15
6- 2
Averages:
Mean winning turn: 3.54
Median winning turn: 3
Mode winning turn: 3
Mean winning turn when LED was cast: 2.97
Median winning turn when LED was cast: 3
Mode winning turn when LED was cast: 2;3
Mean winning turn when LED wasn't cast: 3.81
Median winning turn when LED wasn't cast: 4
Mode winning turn when LED wasn't cast: 3
Mean winning turn when Desperate Ravings was cast: 2.63
Median winning turn when Desperate Ravings was cast: 2
Mode winning turn when Desperate Ravings was cast: 2
Mean winning turn when Desperate Ravings wasn't cast: 3.75
Median winning turn when Desperate Ravings wasn't cast: 4
Mode winning turn when Desperate Ravings wasn't cast: 3
I'll write out some conclusions/observations tomorrow since I'm pretty tired right now. If you have any questions about the data, just ask.
Interesting to see the number of turn 1, 2, 3 wins LED produces without 4 Desperate Ravings, right now I'm playing the full set of Desperate Ravings and Phantasmagorian (No Gitaxian Probes MD) and I think being able to open up with LED/DA turn 1 has its advantages vs. combo etc. It's not nearly as scary to the opponent when they know that you're relying on Dredging into it to go off, which I think is kind of a problem.
I only had time for two rounds yesterday at our local event (2-0), but had to drop to take care of some stuff. At any rate, I played against nitewolf9 (Dan Signorini) and wound up taking it down 2-1. He was on BUG, and I was on the older plan (without L.E.D.'s; they're on the way).
I opened the third game up with a revealed Chancellor of the Annex, and subsequently found myself with an Ichorid and Nether Shadow in the graveyard. Dan was on Crypt and Relic as sideboarded hate, and with an active Sylvan Library on the board, I had to go for it the following turn. I had no Bridges in the graveyard, and recurred Nether Shadow and Ichorid. I dredged six into a Narcomoeba and Dread Return, and decided to go for it (as any graveyard removal would blow me out the following turn).
So, I decided to Dread Return the Chancellor back into play, as I knew Dan would be on Tombstalker. Sure enough, he dropped Crypt that turn and blew my graveyard out. After swinging for five, the following turn Dan dropped a Tombstalker. However, I rode Annex all the way to victory after three more successive attacks. His ability is just ridiculously good and so relevant against decks that are mana hungry.
Thankfully, it was the right call and it served up the victory.
The following round, I beat Merfolk relatively soundly and attacked my opponent Game Three for over forty damage on turn two. I played around Relic Game Two, as I played Gitaxian Probe early, drew a card, moved to eight, and forced him to hit the Probe with the Relic. The following turn, with a Troll in the graveyard, he activated Relic, and I subsequently activated a Faerie Macabre in my hand for a target of zero cards - again forcing him to miss it. I wound up keeping a healthy eight in my hand as often as I could and dredged into some goodies early, but he wound up barely taking that game off three successive Cursecatchers and a second Relic.
The game was played perfectly, and it was not out of reach until those later turns. Just kind of a mini-report.
@Hollywood— well played, awesome to see a real life example of Relic getting played around. EDIT: never mind.
Also, Obsessive Search doesn't seem too good, especially when you consider you have to have it in hand and the fact that it's completely predicated on LED. I'd rather run a Bauble at that point.
So, after yesterday's testing, I think I've come to the conclusion that there should be at least three Phantasmagorian in the maindeck, even if you're playing LED. It was the card I wanted to see most every game I didn't have LED, especially when you consider how much better it is when you're running the full set of Nether Shadow. We just need to find the optimal numbers of all non-graveyard interactive spells before we can really build a definitive list (Probe and Ravings in particular, although LED does fall into that category and isn't necessarily a sacred cow). I used to think jamming in as many draw spells made the deck faster, but I'm actually starting to see it go off faster without them because of the increased density of the quality of cards in the graveyard (Phantasmagorian in particular). I'd say we have seven slots to play around with (assuming Nether Shadow is a four-of), those currently being represented in the above list as:
4 Gitaxian Probe
2 Desperate Ravings
1 Sphinx of Lost Truths
What the optimal configuration is at this point, I don't know, but I'd like to cut at least one of those seven for a third Phantasmagorian (River Kelpie might be better than Sphinx at that point of you cut the number of DR targets by one). Keep in mind, we can always change up the config with sideboard space.
Is LED a 4-off? Meaning you call it "core" without the 7 flex slots?
German lists look a lot different than these here, and we always play 4 Phantasmagorians and 0 LEDs. :rolleyes:
I would consider it a four-of, yes, as it does a lot in giving us game against decks that can win or establish locks (something like Enchantress) before we can do anything. It also does a bit more than that, like giving us an out if we have to mulligan and potentially punishing opponents who choose to put us on the play game two. I wouldn't set LED in stone as an integral part of the deck just yet, but it's certainly looking like it could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by NecroYawgmoth
I wouldn't say that all of those seven cards are necessarily flex slots per se, but slots that the numbers can be played around with to find the optimal build. For example, -2 Gitaxian Probe, +1 D. Ravings, +1 Phantas. Semantics.
I think that three Phantasmagorian is a very safe number once you consider the amount correlates with the number of Probes and LEDs you're playing. You could probably get away with two, but three feels a lot safer. Four might very well be correct though, the card is very good; I'd much rather see two than none in games without LED having been cast.
I just think you should cut Gitaxian Probe for a full set of Phantasmagorians and Desperate Ravings, there's no reason you have to shoe horn in more draw when we previously calculated 4 Lions Eye Diamond/Deep Analysis lists were just as fast as 16 Cantrip lists and this list has Street Wraith on top of that already.
Playing less than 4 Lions Eye Diamond is terrible if you're playing any number of Desperate Ravings.
I think cutting Gitaxian Probe could be a mistake. It's obviously a "flex" slot (if you want to call it that), but I feel as though the information it provides, how well it plays with Cabal Therapy, its basically "free" cost, and that it accelerates a dredger is absolutely huge in this deck. Lion's Eye Diamond is really good, but I've actually shifted a set of those with Deep Analysis into the sideboard. I'm finding Faerie Macabre to be far more useful, and I think Legacy right now is predicated on cheap counters and a high level of interactivity. I don't want to lose (or at least fall back on) Lion's Eye Diamond as a full-blown win condition unless I'm playing against Storm.
Gitaxian Probe offers everything you could want at practically no cost. It's a critical "draw now" component when you want to accelerate into the win. Lion's Eye Diamond tricks the Manaless player into getting greedy and mulliganing more aggressively, and I think that hurts the overall strategy of this deck. Against decks like Storm, you can afford the loss of a card because you're also running Chancellor, which could buy you a turn in the instance you draw into a Lion's Eye Diamond. I just think L.E.D. strategically requires you to play with your deck differently in a big way, and it might not necessarily be for the good.
Now granted Kevin, your numbers have provided some key information, but your test hands also didn't take into account what your percentages would have been had you been playing against disruption/counter-magic, and that makes a world of difference as Legacy right now is circling in a world of Dazes. Those raw numbers help in determining how fundamentally fast the deck could start, but again - we have to assume that an opponent will be ready for it. I just think L.E.D. is nuts against the right deck, but I'm finding it to be more of a liability than anything else Game One.
We can safely assume the deck is fast enough with L.E.D. to win with it (or close to it) paired with a Deep Analysis, but Manaless Dredge is notorious for its consistency. I just think L.E.D. cuts into that a little bit. It's a card that begs to be played with correctly - and timely (which also opens the deck up even further to discard). I would much rather keep Gitaxian Probe and Faerie Macabre at the ready; they function much smoother and serve a multilateral purpose in the deck which rounds it out nicely. Faerie Macabre is definitely not narrow, as indicated by the example above. I was able to play around Relic because of it, and I just think its utility is severely underestimated here.
If you're going with the L.E.D. plan, you're opening yourself up to counter-magic and taking out slots that have evolved into key components of the archetype, so just think twice about what you're doing. L.E.D. is a card that you build and play around. But there's a reason the deck went undefeated Day One of the G.P., and I'm sure Faerie Macabre and Gitaxian Probe had something to do with that.
I played Hollywood's LED-less list yesterday at Jupiter games to. 2-2 drop. I was surgically extracted, bogged and extirpated in the matches I lost, but more than once was able to come back from being relic'd and single extracted. The deck is a blast to play, even with so much graveyard hate running around. I beat u/w stoneblade and cephalid breakfast, and narrowly lost game 3 against junk to a top decked bog after having my bridges extracted and my ichorids extirpated. Multiple opponents commented on how useless their cards were against the minimal interaction of the deck. All in all, I had a great time.
Interesting. I'd like to hear more about your experiences at Jupiter. I think a lot of it depends on variance, and there is certainly a lot of that going around at Jupiter. I think in such a highly concentrated Blue meta, I'm kind of surprised you only went 2-2. Junk can be tough, though. What was your other loss to?Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkusjones
I get extremely aggressive when I play. I am not afraid to take chances, and there are times when I won't fear powering out a solid Dread Return, bringing back a 6/6 or 7/7 Troll and getting three to six Zombies out of it. The deck can attack from all angles of play (combo, direct attack, hand-shredding, etc.), which is one of the reasons it works so well. It's a deck that requires you to pay attention to detail very carefully and know what triggers and when. I hope you didn't miss any or too many of them that could have perhaps cost you a game or two.
I'm playing in our weekly local here on Wednesday which always brings solid competition. I'll be sure to do a small write-up. (There's actually a slew of events coming up, for that matter.)