[Deck] Dryad Sligh

[Anarky87]

Not really. First strike is a combat ability, and in this deck, you don't want your creatures engaging in combat all that much. Yes, it is easy to burn away blockers, get a creature through, and play a Scab-Clan Mauler - just not all at the same turn.

Why does it have to be all in one turn? I can see why the burn would take care of blockers, which I'm still thinking SCM would be fine then. I can also see them not blocking all of your creatures right away too, meaning you could drop Mauler off of that. But if it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't.

And I'm not playing Rancor. Blood Knight is really good with it, but is there any compelling reason to take out 8 cards in the deck for these 8 cards?

Note: I'll try out -2 Seal of Fire, -1 Fireblast, -1 something for 4 Blood Knight. I'll see how it goes.

Yeah, Rancor turns Blood Knight into a 4/2 First striking, pro-white, trampling beast, Kird Ape becomes a 4/3 trampler, Dryad now gains trample and 2/0. Rancor makes your dudes beefier and more capable of taking down larger threats on their own, leaving your burn for something else, rather than leaving them 1/1's and the ocassional 2/3.

Or maybe I'm just lucky against Angel Stompy?...

I'd take this to be the case, since you're saying you're able to burn every creature they could possibly play and them never have any responses to your stuff.

[kicks_422]

Why does it have to be all in one turn?

Because you need to drop an SCM early to apply pressure, and for that you need burn+SCM for at least 3 mana. If a creature doesn't get blocked, and you play a 3/3 Mauler, is that really better than a Dryad?

And what would you put in for the Maulers, anyway? Sliths?

Rancor makes your dudes beefier and more capable of taking down larger threats on their own, leaving your burn for something else, rather than leaving them 1/1's and the ocassional 2/3.

So if Rancor's role was to take down larger threats, why not be it burn, which also deals damage to the opponent or more damage to a blocker and doesn't need to be attached to a creature?

EDIT: On further thought, I'd try out taking out the Sliths for Blood Knight. I'd actually like to try out a lot of the cards that you guys have suggested, it's just that I'm having trouble deciding which cards to cut - yeah, Blood Knight and SCM are/might be good, but are they better than what's already in the deck as it stands?

[ACE]

@Roodmistah: The deck doesn't need to replenish its hand. Also, if I were to include something 3cc in the deck, it would have to do something better than draw 3 or take 5 - holding back Fireblasts and losing more to LD (which the deck really hates) for that potential 3cc card topdeck is such a big burden. Barbarian Rings can't be sacrificed to Fireblast and contradict with Grim Lavamancers - I'd like to keep my Lavamancers churning out Shocks than wait to get Threshold for a Ring activation and land-loss.

@Volt: Thanks, I remember when we used to work on this deck a bit before you drifted off to MeatHooks. About Rift Bolt vs. Incinerate, I kinda want the burn instantly, not wait for my upkeep because sometimes getting a blocker out of the way is crucial. I'll keep it in mind, though.

@outsideangel: Rancor is kind of a meh card for me in this deck, when you're burning away blockers anyway. And when the big dudes get big (I'm assuming you meant Slith and Dryad), they've already done their job. Slapping on a Rancor on them might as well just have been a burn spell. Putting on a Rancor on a small Slith or Dryad won't matter as well, as it will most likely get blocked and get killed. It needs a creature and a bad topdeck as well. Might be good in some builds (I believe Volt posted one here in the forums, which makes good use of Rancor with Blood Knight)

@aisman132000: Which decks are you going to SB it in? The current decks with a lot of nonbasics are already good MU's (Landstill, Affinity) or have better cards to SB in against (Thresh, MeatHooks, Stax Prison).

in legacy, the only real deck that doesnt run nonbasics is solidarity, and it is losing popularity because more people are learning how to beat it. so price of progress is not a bad card. i run 2 of in every burn deck i play.

also, have you thought about firebolt? 2 damage for 1 mana is prety decent, plus it flashes back when you need it to to pump your dryad and remove someone. i think it's worth it to put in. (sorry if it has already been discussed, only got this far and i need sleep).

And rancor has synergy with the slith guy in later game. plus, its like adding burn to the dome. it makes critters trample, and comes back if your guys bite the dust. it may also be worth trying out.

the deck looks prety good though! keep up the good work.

[kicks_422]

i run 2 of in every burn deck i play

Well, this isn't burn... And like I said, the match-ups that it will have a great impact on are already good MU's, so I feel that it's awaste of SB space.

also, have you thought about firebolt?

Yes it has, but the flashback is too high that the deck probably won't need it. It would much rather be a Shock, or in my case, a Seal of Fire.

And rancor has synergy with the slith guy in later game. plus, its like adding burn to the dome. it makes critters trample, and comes back if your guys bite the dust. it may also be worth trying out.

In the late game, if the Slith is already big, then it would probably have dealt lots of damage already. A Rancor would have been just any other burn spell and it wouldn't matter.

Let's sum this up for Rancor:

Advantages:
Reusable
Adds power to creatures
Adds trample to creatures

Disadvantages:
NEEDS a creature
Doesn't provide reach when topdecked
Doesn't pump Dryad
Liability of getting 2-for-1'd

IMHO, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I think the deck's success is that every card in the deck is a threat on its own. Having a Rancor'd up Dryad is great and all, but would you cut burn for it, and lessen your speed and reach? Or cut creatures for it, and lessen the number which you can attach it to?

[noobslayer]

Well, it's good to see that you are willing to try our suggestions, as opposed to just blindly refuting them.

Your sentiments about SCM still strike me as odd. First off, we won't always have a Dryad in hand. SCM, even if not 'Thirsted, is still a 1/1 body for Rancor. With Dryad, it pumps it, and now you have two threats. And yes, you DO WANT to apply pressure early. However, even if you are forced into a mid game, SCM is a stellar drop for this deck.

As far as testing goes, try card changes in small groups, and keep detailed notes a to how they were during play, and what other cards they interacted well with. In the end you'll have a clear cut deck list with the strongest possible synergy and card choices.

[kicks_422]

Well, this is the N&D Forum, so that's how it should be, right?

I'm just having trouble figuring out which cards to cut... I'd like to keep at least 20 burn in the deck though... So what should I take out for Blood Knight/SCM?

The first test I tried out was with Rancors, where I took out 1 Fireblast and 2 Seal of Fire. It didn't work out too well at first, and most times I just wanted it to be burn. When it worked, it worked great though, but having only 12 nice tragets for it (Slith, Dryad, Ape) is hampering, as a Rancor'd up Lavamancer won't use it if it starts chucking Shocks, while a Rancor'd up Fanatic will sometimes be a waste of mana in case you need to sacrifice it right away after just one attack with Rancor.

[Volt]

Well, this is the N&D Forum, so that's how it should be, right?

I'm just having trouble figuring out which cards to cut... I'd like to keep at least 20 burn in the deck though... So what should I take out for Blood Knight/SCM?

The first test I tried out was with Rancors, where I took out 1 Fireblast and 2 Seal of Fire. It didn't work out too well at first, and most times I just wanted it to be burn. When it worked, it worked great though, but having only 12 nice tragets for it (Slith, Dryad, Ape) is hampering, as a Rancor'd up Lavamancer won't use it if it starts chucking Shocks, while a Rancor'd up Fanatic will sometimes be a waste of mana in case you need to sacrifice it right away after just one attack with Rancor.

Well, honestly, I think the weakest card left in your deck is Incinerate. However, if you're adamant about keeping the burn count at 20 or whatever, I guess you take out either the Firewalker or the Dryad. Since the name of this thread is Dryad Sligh, I guess Firewalker gets the axe.

[Anarky87]

Because you need to drop an SCM early to apply pressure, and for that you need burn+SCM for at least 3 mana. If a creature doesn't get blocked, and you play a 3/3 Mauler, is that really better than a Dryad?

And what would you put in for the Maulers, anyway? Sliths?

Frankly, I've never been entirely impressed with Slith, but I'd probably put Knights in the Slith spot and work SCM in somewhere else. There were a lot of times where I watched Slith just get handled effortlessly and I never really cared for him. SCM can be dropped early and it can be dropped late. A 3/3 trampler for 2 is still a 3/3 trampler for 2 regardless when it comes down. While not 'teh uber' like Dryad is, it's a 3/3 beater for when Dryad gets her ass handed to her or you don't draw it.

So if Rancor's role was to take down larger threats, why not be it burn, which also deals damage to the opponent or more damage to a blocker and doesn't need to be attached to a creature?

Except Rancor is constant and burn is temporary. And its goal is not to take down bigger threats, I like it because it makes your threats the bigger threats. 4/3's, 4/2, and 5/3 first striking tramplers backed up by burn are more threatening and efficient (IMO) than 1/1's and 2/2's accompanied by the same burn. They need really only to answer Dryad and Slith because your other creatures are unthreatening.

Sure you can beat for a few points and then maybe hope they let your Slith and Dryad grow immensely and finish by chucking some burn at their dome, but what about when they kill your Dryad/Slith or you don't draw it and they leave you with 1/1's? I don't know, the strategy just seems to beat with weak creatures that maybe my opponent won't deal with, and then kill every creature they play with an infinite amount of burn from my hand, but also be thrown at them.

EDIT: On further thought, I'd try out taking out the Sliths for Blood Knight. I'd actually like to try out a lot of the cards that you guys have suggested, it's just that I'm having trouble deciding which cards to cut - yeah, Blood Knight and SCM are/might be good, but are they better than what's already in the deck as it stands?

Maybe I'm coming at the deck from a R/G beats perspective, where you suit up a threat with Rancor and start swinging, using your burn to clear a war path for your beaters to finish the game. Which is where I've had good experiences with SCM and Rancor, because you make your creatures bigger than theirs and your burn forces them into a bad position creature wise to where you overwhelm them. I don't want you to change your whole deck and it's good that you are trying things out and the conversation isn't becoming a flame fight of epic proportions.

I'd at least try Blood Knight, if anything. At least with Rancor (If I were to play this, I should say), if they Plow your Dryad or whatever, you can 'Cor up the Knight and start swinging for 4 first striking and trample, most likely taking down their bigger threats so you won't have to 2-1 stuff like Grunt, Mystic Enforcer, Werebear, etc. It makes your threats more versatile because now any creature can be a beater, not just Dryad/Slith and the rest are cake eaters. But like Noobslayer said, you could try just a few things at once and see if they flow, and if not, change them back. Since you play the deck, you have more concept of how it works out than I would, because I've never played sligh, only R/G. Overall though, I think it's a solid deck to start with.

[kicks_422]

I forgot to mention another thing which has been keeping me from adding in SCM's and Rancors - the manabase. I want to keep every land in the deck a Mountain or a fetchland for it. Having SCM, Rancor, and Dryad in the deck greatly increases the reliance on green, so a Wasteland on a lone Taiga might potentially clog up my hand with uncastable green cards.

The green is just a splash anyway, and having only 4 cards in the deck which relies on green to actually be cast is the only shield the deck has against LD, one of its greatest threats.

I'll be testing extensively over the weekend (midterms week woes), and I'll list all the tweaks I've made and come out with a comment on every minor change I'll be making.

I just don't want the deck to drift into R/G Beatdown, because if that's the case, I'll just play Zilla Stompy or the RG build of Dave Feinstein. The deck's signature is a healthy balance of land, creatures, and burn, where every card is a threat on its own. I think adding Forests in the MD along with all the other green cards takes chunks away from the deck's character.

[noobslayer]

If you're having trouble with a Wasteland, just sit on a fetch until you need G for spells.

[kicks_422]

That's actually pretty bad for a deck that wants to cast its spells quickly and maximize mana. And fetching for basics alone would be bad when you want to cast a green spell that you just drew.

The deck usually draws around 2-4 lands the entire game, so not being able to use one because of holding back a fetch would really hamper the play style.

[Volt]

That's actually pretty bad for a deck that wants to cast its spells quickly and maximize mana. And fetching for basics alone would be bad when you want to cast a green spell that you just drew.

The deck usually draws around 2-4 lands the entire game, so not being able to use one because of holding back a fetch would really hamper the play style.

Agreed. Sitting on a fetch just is not a viable strategy with this deck.

@Noobslayer: What's with the "Cursed Scroll should be in" comment and then posting a decklist without it?

This deck really should be running some number of Fireblasts. Four is too many, but 2-3 is fine, and will win you games.

Once again, on the topic of Scab-Clan Mauler... I've tried it, and it's just a little too inconsistent. Yes, you can "usually" get into play with thirst counters, but you are often forced to make suboptimal plays to do so, such as throwing a Mogg Fanatic or burn spell at your opponent's head when you would rather be holding it back for defensive purposes. Those situations do come up, you know.

Lastly, Seal of Fire is an underrated card that has nice synergy with this deck, whether you're running Slith Firewalker, SCM, or both.

[mmmetaphor]

What about wasteland? In the early game once a creature is on the board wasteland can often acts as a timewalk. But does adding it hurt the mana base too much?

Something like:

4 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Taiga
2 Stomping Ground
2 Mountain
4 Wasteland

This base still allows 16 red sources and 14 Green.

[Volt]

What about wasteland? In the early game once a creature is on the board wasteland can often acts as a timewalk. But does adding it hurt the mana base too much?

Something like:

4 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Taiga
2 Stomping Ground
2 Mountain
4 Wasteland

This base still allows 16 red sources and 14 Green.

"Acts as a timewalk" is one the most overused phrases in Magic. Wasting someone's land doesn't act as a timewalk. It's a simple one for one trade. Occasionally, yes, you'll win a game off a timely Wasteland or three when your opponent happens to have a mana-light draw. Overall, though, I don't think Wasteland is worth playing in Legacy, unless it's part of a devoted strategy (i.e. Wasteland + Crucible of Worlds, Wasteland + Life from the Loam, Wasteland + land destruction spells, Wasteland + Rishadan Port + Aether Vial, etc.)

[mmmetaphor]

"Acts as a timewalk" is one the most overused phrases in Magic. Wasting someone's land doesn't act as a timewalk. It's a simple one for one trade. Occasionally, yes, you'll win a game off a timely Wasteland or three when your opponent happens to have a mana-light draw. Overall, though, I don't think Wasteland is worth playing in Legacy, unless it's part of a devoted strategy (i.e. Wasteland + Crucible of Worlds, Wasteland + Life from the Loam, Wasteland + land destruction spells, Wasteland + Rishadan Port + Aether Vial, etc.)

"Acts a timewalk"

Meaning this play arises fairly often (or something similar):

Your turn 1: Taiga, Kird Ape
Their turn 1: Random nonbasic, go
Your turn 2: Draw, Play Rancor, play waste land, wasteland nonbasic. Swing for 4 dmg.
Their Turn 2: Play another land (esentially their turn one all over again except you have done 4 damage and have a alnd, ape and rancor on the board).

Youve basically added +4 damage. Maybe you don't draw or play rancor so it only ends up being +2 but you get the point. This accomplishes much more than a "one for one trade."

Also, odds are you rely less on land (1cc, 2cc spells only) than does your opponent so taking one of theirs out while you do damage stalls them for a turn. Yes granted this may not *always* be the case but it does happen often based on my experience. I don't think the phrase is misplaced or overused in this context.

Maybe it's personal play style but I wouldn't swap out my wastelands for anything because they often do "Act like a timewalk".

[Volt]

So, when you play a Wasteland, your opponent doesn't get to untap or draw a card on his next turn? In fact, he doesn't get a next turn? That's pretty good.

Look, I'm not saying that Wasting a land isn't sometimes a good thing. I'm just encouraging you to get out of the habit of saying things like such and such "acts as a timewalk." It smacks of noobishness.

And I'll stand by what I said before. Wasteland isn't all that great unless it's incorporated into a strategy that can really take advantage of it. Sligh can sort of take advantage of it, sometimes, but not enough.

[noobslayer]

About cursed scroll, I'm currently testing a creature heavier build, that is all. And about the fetchland, if you're that paranoid about them wasting a green source, you don't have many other options other than playing through it, or really bad idea, adding a basic forest.

[mmmetaphor]

So, when you play a Wasteland, your opponent doesn't get to untap or draw a card on his next turn? In fact, he doesn't get a next turn? That's pretty good.

Look, I'm not saying that Wasting a land isn't sometimes a good thing. I'm just encouraging you to get out of the habit of saying things like such and such "acts as a timewalk." It smacks of noobishness.

And I'll stand by what I said before. Wasteland isn't all that great unless it's incorporated into a strategy that can really take advantage of it. Sligh can sort of take advantage of it, sometimes, but not enough.

What smacks of noobishness is arguing the semantics of something what is already obvious. The comparison between wasteland and timewalk is not flawless and thats a given.. I don't think anyone on these boards, my noobish self included (even though I've played mtg for over 10 years) really and truly believes there is no difference between the two cards and needs you to point out that there is still a draw step and untap phase with timewalk.

That said, I was offering a suggestion. You don't like it, fine. But what "smacks of noobishness" is some wank dinging me over using a term on a message board to state a point in a shorter way than having to type out a turn by turn scenario... which still had to be done because I guess you weren't getting it.

However, thanks for the encouragement and glad I could help clear this up.

Flame on.

[Volt]

What smacks of noobishness is arguing the semantics of something what is already obvious.

It's not just semantics, and it's not obvious to me that you're getting the point. I understand that you're trying to say that Wasteland is good for your tempo. What I'm saying is that's not actually true most of the time. What does Wasteland due against Solidarity? Nothing. What does Wasteland do against Goblins? Next to nothing. What does Wasteland due against Thresh? Not much. Thresh only needs 1 or 2 lands to operate, and they play a zillion cantrips.

I'm not denying that there are situations where a Wasteland is golden. Of course you will win a game here and there off a timely Wasteland. However, Wasteland as the only source of mana disruption in the deck just isn't worth it in the long run. You're better off playing consistently good cards in those slots. Also, you really don't want to cheat on mountains. Playing just 16 lands that produce colored mana is asking for trouble.

[kicks_422]

Whoa, chill.

I was able to sneak in a few games with SCM - it wasn't good. There were times when I had no creature in Turn 1 to attack with on Turn 2 or it gets destroyed, so a 3/3 Mauler was impossible. I think Volt covered it pretty much... And if you're planning on dropping SCM anyway as a 1/1, then it's just an overcosted Defiant Elf. Also, if you drop it on Turn 3 as a 3/3, it might as well just have been a Slith on Turn 2 which would also be a 3/3 by the end of Turn 3.

Regarding Wasteland, as mentioned, it's not that useful on its own unless you can supplement it. Besides, how many decks in Legacy have nothing to do on Turn 1? Instead of having 2 mana to cast more threats on Turn 2, you're down to 1. Your opponent might have lost his land, but you gave up the chance to cast a Dryad/Slith/2ccBurn.

Yeah, sure - sometimes it can be a Time Walk. In this particular deck however, 2cc threats or 2 1cc threats on Turn 2 >>> Pseudo-Time Walk.