I don't get the point of powering out a turn 1 Crusader and then not beeing able to play an Innocent Blood :/
...maybe this is the point when we should swap 2 innocent Blood for 2 Go for the Throat ?
Printable View
I don't get the point of powering out a turn 1 Crusader and then not beeing able to play an Innocent Blood :/
...maybe this is the point when we should swap 2 innocent Blood for 2 Go for the Throat ?
They're used for different things, though. T1 Crusader is the play only when the Crusader nuetralizes the enemy army itself, as I understand. That is, the way I conceive of it, Crusader is not so much an offensive threat as it is a card like Engineered Plague. It singlehandedly makes it very difficult for decks with red or white creatures to win.
Which, incidentally, is why I think he works well with Sickening Dreams, in midgame, too. He forces the opponent to overcommit in order to punch through, setting up a game-ending sweeper. And if all is well, by midgame Confidant has been giving you plenty of fuel for Dreams.
I agree If your running ritual Innocent blood is a bad card. In the old version of the gate creatures did not come into play untill turn two or three.Quote:
Originally Posted by sporenfrosch1411
If you power out a turn one Crusader, you really won't need Innocent Blood for anything relevant for at least several turns, in which case, an opponent would already be dead. Innocent Blood is like your catch-all: it gives you the opportunity to kill a creature on your opponent's side early, but if you're seeking the play of dropping an early Crusader on turn one, you won't need Innocent Blood by that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sporenfrosch1411
Also, I don't know if people have paid attention as to what Crusader actually can do; his damage comes in the form of -1/-1 counters and he has first strike. Let's examine the intricacies of the attack step here: he actually shrinks opposing creatures permanently and if dropped early enough will no doubt trump any Goyf in its way. There is absolutely no legitimate source of removal (aside from unusual match-ups) that can stop him once he hits the board in competitive Legacy. There are ways, but it is extraordinarily hard.
I am not convinced to run Crusader as a 2-off. If we commit ourselves on poisoning as a win option, i would without any doubt go for 4 Crusader.
I am currently fiddling with this:
2 Abyssal Persecutor
4 Vampire Nighthawk
4 Dark Confidant
4 Phyrexian Crusader
3 Gatekeeper of Malakir
3 Bitterblossom
3 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Go for the Throat
2 Innocent Blood
2 Deathmark
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
3 Cabal Therapy
17 Swamp
4 Wasteland
SB:
4 Faerie Macabre
3 Ratchet Bomb
3 Pithing Needle
2 Disfigure
3 Dystopia
Some thoughts:
-I would not go below 3 Jitte if you try to go along with the Crusader. Crusader with Jitte, like Nighthawk, can win you a game relatively easily.
-I would try out a cut between 2 Innocent Blood, 2 Deathmark and 2 Go for the Throat - may seem random, but you should be able to handle about every threat with this
-I cut down Gatekeeper to 3. First of all, i lack BBB so often, second of all, this 2/2 Body is just bad and i would much rather put my jitte on Nighthawk or Crusader (if you want to argument with the fact that he can carry a jitte). Let's just say, i swapped one out for a Go for the Throat, i think that pretty much says what i did here.
@Hollywood:
It feels to me that more Th resh lists are considering black, and faeries are about to see more play (with Firespout) - both of those decks will "go for the throat" of your crusader.
BUT - i agree 100% that following your intention of going versus Goblins, Merfolk and CB/Top Crusader T1 is more than devastating and there is no more need for Blood.
What do you think of cutting 2 (or more) bloods for GftT ?
2 Crusader in the main and 2 in the board seems like a better idea. As people have pointed out, there is a little tension between winning with damage and winning with poison. You certainly want access to 4 Crusaders in the proper matchup, but probably don't want to over-commit to them in matchups where they are not as strong (merfolk, for example).
@sporefronsh: I think you're absolutely right about GftT seeing play. I don't think it's a problem unique to Crusader, though. One of mono-black's powers was always that the most efficient black removal could not target black creatures. With one fell swoop, WotC has basically eliminated this consideration. That hurts mono-Black generally, not just Crusader.
Well exactly because of that tension, i would do 4 or none ^_^
But you don't need to even attack with Crusader. Imagine he was:
Phyrexian Crusader Enchantment
1BB
Indestructible
Whenever you are attacked, destroy any one red or white creature attacking you.
Phase out PCE: Target opponent gains two poison counters. If you control Umezawa's Jitte, they gain six instead.
See what I mean? Yeah, you can gg for poison in a pinch, but fundementally he's good because he shuts down what is otherwise a very difficult match.
Crusader is its own entity to deal with. Think of it this way: if an opponent cannot deal with him right off the bat, they are going to use their unorthodox removal (cards like Engineered Explosives, etc.) to rid the board of him. So, in essence, what you are doing is forcing your opponent to scramble and find ways to kill him.
Even against Zoo, Nacatl becomes irrelevant; a 3/3 that gets Infected down to 1/1 off of First Striking damage is unbelievably good, and it staves off an attack and shrinks him for future assaults. And there is absolutely nothing Zoo can do against Crusader except try to win the game faster, and we all know that it won't be hard to generate enough backup with removal and creatures to let Crusader go all the way, which it has done so far in testing.
Believe me, even Zoo used to be a deceptively favorable match with The Gate, but I've lost just as many games against Zoo as I've won as they play just as aggressively as we do in nixing creatures and clearing the board. Crusader is an x-factor that has definitive value.
If anyone is open to testing against this with various decks, PM me. I'd like to get some testing results back from matches that matter.
Very interesting ideas coming up here to be discussed again.
@ Hollywood: You have to change your SB in your post (5 Blossoms seem quite illegal ;))
I'll start testing with this list. It seems to me, that a 3rd jitte could push the list but I'm not sure what to cut for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
Gatekeepers are too much of an issue for adequate boardstate and card advantage (if just to sac into therapy), because we just cut a hymn and spot removal.
I'm also planning to test some kind of swords in SB, because a crusader with prot red, white, black and gravedig sounds nice.
I just noticed that; apologies. I was rushing to throw the list up in a hurry. The sideboard is open for discussion as I'm still reworking mine and it has been updated.
I have been exploring all available incarnations of the deck still, and for those who do not like Dark Ritual as a card in the deck (I'm skeptical too, a little), here is what I've done to make up for it:
[-4] Dark Ritual.
[+2] Deathmark.
[+1] Bitterblossom.
[+1] Umezawa's Jitte.
A lot of people might be wondering why I've included Deathmark back with these changes, and that is certainly understandable. What I'm doing is trading the speed for Dark Ritual with a touch more removal, the third and powerful Jitte, along with the fourth Bitterblossom. Deathmark allows us to clear the board of unwanted Tarmogoyfs and other annoying creatures so that Crusader - who still resides in the list - has a more clear path with no impending threats on the board which in turn allows him to go the distance. I think the deck has the capability of stripping Goblins and Merfolk their first several turns to the point where hard-casting Plague on turn three seems just fine.
Also, a lot of people might be wondering about the absence of Go for the Throat. In testing, it really hasn't done much more than Smother. I'm guessing in large part this is due to the other removal from Innocent Blood and Gatekeeper which really just sets the stage for the preemptive attack step. Go for the Throat, while instant-speed and effective, still costs two mana and functionally only hits other threats that we can deal with anyways. It just seems "win more" in this deck. While Deathmark doesn't hit Goblins or Merfolk, Plague does that to optimal effectiveness and more than makes up for the two other removal spells aimed at those creatures players put their faith in to win games (Knight of the Reliquary, Tarmogoyf, etc.).
Basically I've been finding no real difference between the two except 'Throat hits Tombstalker. Smother has always existed and was never included in many lists, so I really don't see the need for it now. If we're running Plague to shut off nuisance Tribal decks, then cards like 'Blood and 'Keeper work just fine.
I'm wondering how effective a turn 1 plague really is. Turn 1 plague allows them the opportunity to matron up a Tin-Street/Boartusk/Chieftain without losing more than a Matron (or a Lackey, if on the draw) Playing it turn 3 after disrupting them? Not only will they not have gone for the chieftain (in many cases it is a 1-of) but they will have played quite a few threats - allowing you to sweep SG tokens, matrons, lackeys, war marshalls, Instigators, etc. Thoughts?
I need an answer to Jace. Lil' bastard locked me out of the game. Would Phyrexian Revoker be a decent enough choice MD?
I run 2 Mainboard and a third in the side. I love Pithing Beetle. It's my way of hampering CounterTop, and it has so many other spot uses. It shuts off vials, neuters Planeswalkers, and turns Mom into a vanilla 1/1. The little bugger is amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by bakofried
Is that still with 18 lands? I assumed that the omission of Wastelands and overall land reduction was due to the inclusion of Dark Ritual. As for Dark Ritual, I am tempted by the speed that it allows us. As Hollywood has said before, a game of legacy is pretty much decided by how the first three turns turn out. And the idea of pumping out a first turn Crusader, which is essentially unkillable for the first three turns (Pernicious deed/Engineered Explosives/Cataclysm, etc.) and Tarmogoyf isn't big yet. Sounds good to me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
But what excites me even more is Crusader with equipment. First strike with Jitte means that you need at least a creature with defense of 5 (2 damage, the removal of two counters) to survive an attack by the crusader. With 2 counters, the crusader can take out everything less than 7 defense!
That is why I'm a big proponent of the third jitte. I really really want that card every game.
The only price is card advantage, which I'm wary of. Losing 3 card advantage to a force of will is devestating, and even duress and hymn puts you at even. But what people have to understand is that if you see blue or if you know your opponent is playing a serious blue deck, you have to adjust your play style, which requires a certain degree of skill and knowledge of the opponent's deck archetype. That's what makes The Gate so fun. It takes skill.
I think the third Jitte is huge and should find inclusion, no questions asked. It's far too good and transcends every match into a favorable situation.
I have been testing the deck out for the last hour or so and have found that in a list that runs Ritual, we really want Nevinyrral's Disk back in the board. It can be powered out extremely fast and in some ways is far more crippling than Null Rod against decks like Affinity. Those creatures can still attack, and forcing an opponent to face a serious setback is the perfect setup for the mid-game. You could play both, if you choose to do so.
I'm sort of at a toss-up on this one. Ritual just seems so good here that it pains me to admit it warrants inclusion because of the way we've been theorizing about the deck for as long as I can remember. But there are no Survivals to worry about here, and I'm really digging the effect of a turn one Crusader doing some serious damage. Just consider that Green men can block, and that is basically where I'm coming from with Deathmark again. I would hate getting blown out by Daze on the draw with an end of turn 'Throat or Smother, which is why I don't mind settling for something cheap like Deathmark in a circumstance that warrants it.
I've also been looking at Crypt Rats; no joke (as a board option). At this point, I'm just trying everything and seeing how it works. Board-sweepers are always good and he knocks out Planeswalkers with damage redirection and helps against decks like Ichorid, Elves, and Merfolk. Dark Ritual and Jitte seem good with him, too. Pump him up to a 5/5, Pestilence for four, attack for five more (with no creatures on board), get two more counters.
Seems good. We could even sub-out Crusaders for him against the aforementioned decks.
So Crypt Rats in the board to fight aggro? It's a thought, though it seems that Disk would be superior, by virtue of it hitting everything. This can be a fault, too, though - it pops your own Jittes and Bitterblossom's as well. By the way, I'm putting decklists together on Cockatrice to test with/against. I'll have whatever current version of The Gate that Hollywood is suggesting, as well as Rg Goblins (up), CounterTop (Bant, 4c(up), and Thopter(up)), Zoo(up), Merfolk, TES(up), and Dredge. The downside is, while I have experience playing Dredge, Goblins, and Merfolk, I'm cold everywhere else.
I ran The Gate at the Star City legacy challenge (4 rounds swiss, no cut) tonight. Here's what I ran:
LAND (22)
18 Swamp
4 Wasteland
CREATURES (17)
3 Abyssal Persecutor
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Dark Confidant
4 Nighthawk
2 Phyrexian Crusader
REMOVAL (15)
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Torach
3 Caball Therapy
4 Innocent Blood
OTHER (6)
3 Bitterblossom
3 Umezawa's Jitte
SB (15)
4 Thorn of Amethyst (storm combos, swap out Innocent Blood)
2 Crusader (gg against zoo and gobbos, swap out a nighthawk and a percy)
1Nature's Ruin
4 Engineered Plague
4 Faerie Macabre (reanimator, swap out sickening dreams)
Here's how things broke down:
Round 1 - White Control Homebrew
His deck was playing the same control-and-midgame that mine was. Trouble is, he was able to topdeck Story Circle. No answer for that. Once COP:Black drops, The Gate rolls over and dies.
Dark Ritual would have done fuckall here. His deck has the ability to topdeck things The Gate simply cannot answer.
Round 2 - Elves
I expected to face Elves and I was not dissapointed. Probably there were at least five or six elf decks in a field of 30 people. Game one, he combos into a massive Jorga Warcaller and kills me. I bring in Ruin and Plagues. Game 2, he realizes how terrible it is that he decided to run Land Grant instead of fetches, as I rape his hand with double cabal therapy. I keep him off gas the whole game and beat him down with fliers. Game three goes right to the wire. He beats me to one life with his elves before I get a jitte on Percy and stabalize. (For lols, I come within instants of playing a second Jitte and locking myself out of the game - but I dont!) From one life, I claw back by having blockers each turn and pinging his elf lords away one at a time. Finally, I topdeck Plague after his lords are gone, which ends the game.
In theory, Ritual for Plague is a strong opening play. However I never saw Plague in my opening grip anyway, and I was quite content to murder elves over time before putting in the finishing blow.
Round 3 - Merfolk
Both games, The Deck hums like a finely tuned machine. Early game I strip him of defenses with discard and murder fish as they land. Then, once I get to midgame, my threats are far more powerful than his and he is slowly beat down over the brink. With the discard and removal we run, I think Merfolk is a very solidly favorable matchup.
Never wanted Ritual. I was happiest to nail him with B cc cards all day long.
Round 4 - Belcher
Depressing. Game 1, he goes off turn 1 and slaughters me. Game 2, I keep a hand with a second turn thorn on the play, figuring that he was not likely to go off turn 1. He does, AGAIN, and I lose.
Ritual would have saved game 2 if I had been able to power out the Thorn on turn 1.
So, all in all, I was happy with the changed decklist. I skimped on some removal to focus on threats, and that worked out okay. I'm still up in the air about ritual.
I think that was a good showing - you played well against A.) what you expected and B.) a DTB. You hit a homebrew and shitty combo deck that (shouldn't) see much play anymore, so that was bad luck.
W/o Dark Rit, I don't really see the need for the 4th Plague. By the time you can cast it, you'll have drawn one, so I think the 4th may be wasted space.
Also, did you ever miss targeted removal?
I'm not digging Dark Rit. My last 3 games they haven't helped, and my latest it downright hurt.