[Deck] Dragon Stompy

[Rinello]

@ Taco:

Someone told me that he runs a version of this deck with no Arcslogger, Dragon, Akroma and Song, with 4 Maulers, 4 Crusher and more equips.

He thinks that this way the deck is strong, as your mana curve is better.

I wanted to know your opinion.

[Afro]

@ Taco:

Someone told me that he runs a version of this deck with no Arcslogger, Dragon, Akroma and Song, with 4 Maulers, 4 Crusher and more equips.

He thinks that this way the deck is strong, as your mana curve is better.

I wanted to know your opinion.

As a frequent player of DS this turns DS in a totally different direction. Crusher is broken with loam and only good without it. 18 Lands + Crusher = the opposite of insane which a turn 1 Slogger or Pit Dragon is. Why not just go broken and play awesome creatures that come out turn 1-2 via acceleration and can essentially win the game THAT turn.

This deck used to play 'good' creatures in it like Siege-Gang and Empty the Warrens. It has evolved into a legitimate tier 1.5 deck. Let us not go backwards.

[DrewliusMaximus]

Although I can only play casually since there doesn't seem to be any organized Legacy stuff around me, I have have noticed good results with a list almost exactly like Taco's latest one (post #561). I've been playing 3 Akromas instead of 4, and 11 mountains. My SB is different, but that's for my limited metagame.

I really liked some points made a while ago by Zork (post #240) about various mana curves, and since the Worlds list was posted I've preferred more mana and bigger threats in DS.

One thing I've tested a little but am not sure of is using a lone Lotus Petal instead of the 11th mountain. Any thoughts?

[mercenarybdu]

Although I can only play casually since there doesn't seem to be any organized Legacy stuff around me, I have have noticed good results with a list almost exactly like Taco's latest one (post #561). I've been playing 3 Akromas instead of 4, and 11 mountains. My SB is different, but that's for my limited metagame.

I really liked some points made a while ago by Zork (post #240) about various mana curves, and since the Worlds list was posted I've preferred more mana and bigger threats in DS.

One thing I've tested a little but am not sure of is using a lone Lotus Petal instead of the 11th mountain. Any thoughts?

Lotus Petal is alright but then it is also one of the risky things to do as you would have to be extra careful upon where the mana is actually going when casting a spell. Then at the same time it could also be a dead draw if you have no other uses to the card when you don't actually need it.

[Tacosnape]

@ Taco:

Someone told me that he runs a version of this deck with no Arcslogger, Dragon, Akroma and Song, with 4 Maulers, 4 Crusher and more equips.

My opinions are threefold:

1. He's playing a different deck.
2. Countryside Crusher sucks in any Tomb/Chalice build.
3. More Equipment makes your deck less consistent. (Edit: More Artifacts in general does this, actually, but Equipment can be worse if your hurting for threat quantity.)

One thing I've tested a little but am not sure of is using a lone Lotus Petal instead of the 11th mountain. Any thoughts?

Every mana source in Dragon Stompy should be one of two things.

1. Permanent. This includes Mountain, Ancient Tomb, and Chrome Mox, and stretches a bit to include City of Traitors.
2. Red, so it can imprint on Mox if your hand is mana-heavy.

Lotus Petal is neither of these. Run the 11th Mountain if you must have another mana source. And if you must have it be a nonland card, run a single Rite of Flame.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Lotus Petal is neither of these. Run the 11th Mountain if you must have another mana source. And if you must have it be a nonland card, run a single Rite of Flame.

I fully agree with your point of view on the mana sources. However... not that i'm considering running either, but how is a single Rite of Flame better than a Lotus Petal? Petal would enable 2R on your first turn if you start with a Tomb/City; Rite of Flame wouldn't since you need red mana to cast it anyway. Both would only give you +1 red mana, except that Rite requires you to already have access to it.

In any case, i think they're both unnecessary.

[deviant]

Rite of Flame has synergy with chrome mox. And Pyrokinesis if you sb it.
I think he said something of the kind.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You beat me to it! You're right, Rite of Flame is red. I realised that was the answer so came back to clarify my post but you had already responded. Oh well.

[Dilettante]

I've been trying to examine a variant build based on pinching mana resources in both directions, maindecking four Trinispheres/two Blood Moon and trying to run creatures that can maintain aggro, but sap mana resources or create mana screws when forced to basics... like... Ogre Arsonist/Ravaging Horde, in order to maintain the aggressiveness through the funk you put your opponent through with the earlier disruption, but have difficulty in trying to get the mana curve to remain stable. Is this too mana-intensive a method to examine?

[Rinello]

I think that too many 5 CC cards slow the deck.

This deck stops the enemy from playing anything with moons, chalice etc.. then drops a big threat.

Ogre is not big enough IMHO.

now a question:
Why faerie stompy is not in DTW section while Dragon is?

[Filipinho]

It is based in recent events top 8's.
That's why the decks keep coming in and back.

[Eldariel]

Faerie Stompy has 2 Top 8s in the last datachunk, which is one too few to qualify as a DTW. It has been here previously, but it simply isn't played as much presently as it was at one point; it doesn't play Goyf so many people won't pay it since they don't get to use their shiny 2-mana 6/7s. But enough of that; it doesn't really belong here in the first place. DTW/DTB criteria are listed in the forum post.

In fact, the decks are very opposites in terms of affordability. Dragon Stompy plays only Chrome Mox and Jitte that really cost more than a couple of dollars, making it a great, competitive budget option, while Faerie Stompy plays the two said cards, SoFI, Force of Will and Sea Drake. Simpliest answer to your question is really that Dragon Stompy is played much more since it's much more affordable and thanks to its powerful gameplan and strong hate against the multicolour environment we're looking at, it has solid finishes too.

[Tacosnape]

I've been trying to examine a variant build based on pinching mana resources in both directions, maindecking four Trinispheres/two Blood Moon and trying to run creatures that can maintain aggro, but sap mana resources or create mana screws when forced to basics... like... Ogre Arsonist/Ravaging Horde, in order to maintain the aggressiveness through the funk you put your opponent through with the earlier disruption, but have difficulty in trying to get the mana curve to remain stable. Is this too mana-intensive a method to examine?

The concept of a red land destruction deck in this shell is feasible. The problem is that there probably aren't enough good cards to support it.

The other thing you have to ask yourself is this: Is it really worth trying to attack the opponent's manabase in a way other than through Blood Moon? Obviously, it's nice if you can pick off a basic land or two to back up your Moon, but is it worth dedicating slots in your decks to inferior cards in order to do this?

[deviant]

I think it's better to try and fasten our clock if some changes are to be made - rather than dedicating slots for LD.
I mean, it doesn't sound like a really good tactic to hold onto LD spells (not be hellbent) and wait for our opp. to topdeck a basic just so that we can hit them while they're on the ground.
If we dilute our threats to include LD we give them more time to draw that much-needed basic and do something relevant with it.
(Not that I haven't dreamt of something like avalance riders in this deck myself, but I just don't see it happening before something better gets printed.)
One other thing I'd like to see would be a hard-hitting mountainwalker, but that's not looking like a very good plan either. :(
(The best one I remember was some 3/4 1RR echo guy. Not that the RR matters much in this case 'cause we'd need moon down to make it good anyway but it's just plain bad.)

[Dilettante]

The concept of a red land destruction deck in this shell is feasible. The problem is that there probably aren't enough good cards to support it.

The other thing you have to ask yourself is this: Is it really worth trying to attack the opponent's manabase in a way other than through Blood Moon? Obviously, it's nice if you can pick off a basic land or two to back up your Moon, but is it worth dedicating slots in your decks to inferior cards in order to do this?

Well, it is a maneuver that backs up a Blood Moon/Magus and Trinisphere. I see every land lost in many cases to be worth like a multi-turn Time Walk to draw into the next one, save they have a land glut (advantage: you) or they are playing 4xland.dec (advantage: you). Decks in general these days have less and less land. Leaving an equippable threat on the table (though 3/3 isn't huge, but it isn't another medium-sized body) helps, particularly if you aren't on the go and can't stuff their fetches before they rush for their basic land. However, 5 does seem an exhorbitant cost to do this... and Goblin Settler leaves all of a 1/1 body... But... it is not going for a lock, it is going for tempo improvement. It buys you at least 1 more turn in many scenarios with one of the 10 disrupters in play and without sapping at your own resources beyond that one card. It is not the instant 'win' of Slogger and it isn't a card I'd normally power out with Seething Song, but it can be the final nail in the coffin.

[Redlotus27]

It would seem to me that *most* decks operate at 1-2 lands just fine. Land destruction for the most part is trying to keep the opposition at 1-2 lands realistically. The best thing that ever happend to dragon stompy was the addition of threats. I don't think reducing threats and replacing with LD is a wise move

[Dilettante]

It would seem to me that *most* decks operate at 1-2 lands just fine. Land destruction for the most part is trying to keep the opposition at 1-2 lands realistically. The best thing that ever happend to dragon stompy was the addition of threats. I don't think reducing threats and replacing with LD is a wise move

They operate on 1-2 lands just fine... in a vacuum. The deck is running Chalices, Blood Moons, and Trinispheres. How well does non-red Threshold operate on 1 island that gets conked out when a disrupter is online? Their next basic, I'll let them take their chances... I'll try tourney playtesting a little this weekend... if I can find the 2 Ogres. If I swap out anything to test, it's Akroma... If the hand doesn't look like it can cut it, it becomes a Raider/Mox pitch.

[aristotles_pupil]

Hi!
I think it's time I join in the discussion and share my thoughts on it. I have been playing DS since it's very early start (bloodrock cyclops, masticore etc etc). Back in those days I judged the deck potentially explosive but too unreliable. With a couple of additions from new series (raiders, magus, SSG) the list became more focussed on hellbent and way more reliable. I have taken DS to a couple of tournaments here in Holland and am very pleased with how it runs currently. The highest I came with it was 4th. There are only 2 cards maindeck that I have some reservations about, but more on this later. Here is my current list:

10 Mountain
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors

4 Chrome Mox
4 Seething Song
4 Simian Spirit Guide

4 Rakdos Pit Dragon
2 Arc-Slogger
2 Akroma, Angel of Fury
4 Gathan Raiders

4 Magus of the Moon
3 Blood Moon
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Trinisphere

4 Jitte
---
60

Sideboard

1 Trinisphere
1 Blood Moon
3 Pyroclasm
4 Tormod's Crypt
3 Pithing Needle
3 Powder Keg
--
15

My experiences with the deck:
I see DS as a deck that has the following modus operandi:
1 play a lockpiece (Trinisphere, Chalice, Magus, Moon)
2 play a threat (Raiders, magus, dragon etc)
3 play and equip jitte
4 win or
5 if you do not win repeat step 1 and 2

Basically the deck wants to spit out lock pieces, threats and reach hellbent ASAP.
You win, not by locking your opponent out of the game but by delaying him enough for your threats to connect. Which brings me to my reservations:

Arc-Slogger. Fantastic when it hits play, basically a 'oops I win card'. The problem is that it rarely hits play at all. Since you play a Moon effect ASAP reaching 5 mana is basically only possible with Seething Song. If I draw the Slogger in my first hand without a Song it usually winds up as Raider or Mox fodder. Later on however, top decking it screws up hellbent making the Raiders less effective. I had 4 of them main but replaced 2 with Red Akroma. She never screws up hellbent, plays Raider when morphed and when you do draw a song she is somewhat less impressive than the Slogger but still great. Opponents really fear the Raiders so drawing removal is no small feat either. I am going to test 2 Taurean Maulers in place of the remaining Sloggers but do not think they will be better.
I do think that when the meta changes to more basics, and DS is forced to lose / reduce the amount of Moon effects the Slogger becomes more interesting again.

Trinisphere. I have a true love/hate relationship with this card. On the play it can be amazing, on the draw ok, as topdeck useless. I play 3 main because of my meta, and because it can screw up any deck not prepared for it. Against land destruction (mostly Pox and Wasteland) it's very easy to be caught under you own Trinisphere. So if the meta here changes to more Landstill, Pox, Death and Taxes or Wastelands as far as the eyes can see, it will go to the side.

Playing the deck. I noticed that mastering the deck is not as easy as the basic list suggests. Learning what hand to keep and what hand to toss translates directly into your win / loss ratio.

4 Jitte? Yes. I have won more games on an turn 2 jitte equiped Magus or morph than with the Dragon or Slogger. Jitte is removal, reach, protection and livegain all rolled into one. I have not seen a deck yet that is able to abuse Jitte to the extent DS does. 4 copies rarely screw up hellbent, if it does (one in hand, one in play) you just have to do the math: do I get more damage out of one in play w/out hellbent or with hellbent without one? Usually the hellbent route is key. Remove any counters on the jitte in play (pump that dragon!) , then play the copy in your hand, losing both but gaining Hellbent.

One other idea I'd like to coin in: Fatal Frenzy. A red instant R, that basically acts like a red Berserk. Maybe, just maybe in the Slogger slot to speed up the kill with a turn? What are people's thoughts on this? 10/10 trampling Raider sounds good!

I hope has been usefull!

Mike

[savemysoul]

I think Fatal Frenzy is a win-more card. Usually when you have a 5/5 raider in play, you are going to win

[scrumdogg]

The concept of a red land destruction deck in this shell is feasible. The problem is that there probably aren't enough good cards to support it.

The other thing you have to ask yourself is this: Is it really worth trying to attack the opponent's manabase in a way other than through Blood Moon? Obviously, it's nice if you can pick off a basic land or two to back up your Moon, but is it worth dedicating slots in your decks to inferior cards in order to do this?

Nastynate, a skilled local player who plays the deck & gets results, has Pillage in the sideboard. I love multi-purpose cards & the deck does need some artifact removal, that he can combine that with the ability to whack a non-red basic that sneaked into play makes a lot of sense. Unless undercosted large LD creatures get printed, though, dedicated LD doesn't seem to fit the current deck as it exists.