[Mini-discussion] Aggro Loam and the USA

[Maveric78f]

Pros:
- biggest creatures in the format
- mana denial strategy
- awesome card advantage engine
- its GY strategy is difficult to disrupt
- I find it consistent

Cons:
- one of the slowest decks in the metagame (it's slower than eternal garden for instance, because EG has a lot of ways to play chalice@1 or even trinisphere on its first turn)
- weak reactivity
- few creatures and some well places counterspells and creature removal may slow down again the deck
- inability to control what it's dredging (contrarily to EG that does not care what it's dredging and to togless tog which can brainstorm or use SDT before dredging)

[Skeggi]

In a general way, the deck reminds me a bit of DragonStompy - so explosive sometimes but a bit inconsistent.

The deck has an insane card draw engine making it perhaps the most consistent deck in the meta. I'm not sure why you think it's inconsistent?

[Finn]

It has a draw engine that requires setup. When the setup does not occur, it does not have a draw engine. Inconsistent.

[Aggro_zombies]

It has a draw engine that requires setup. When the setup does not occur, it falls apart because Loam is central to the running of the deck - hence the name, "Aggro Loam." Therefore, taking steps to make sure you have seven plus copies of Loam in your main (4 Wish + 3 Loam) is generally a good idea.

Fix'd.

I play Aggro Loam, but there's no tournaments around here anymore. Which works out in the end, I guess, since I still need one Badlands.

[Arkham]

I've been playing Aggro Loam and I've found it to be very satisfying. It's something I've had in the works for years in one form or another, but I'm glad to have finally gotten the resources to put the deck together completely. The deck isn't 'unstoppable' or anything as arrogant as a certain blue/white artifact deck would claim to be, but it turned my standing in my meta on it's head and is pretty consistent for such an odd assortment of parts.

As for not being able to cope for combo. What do you want? Whatever deck you play in MTG is bound to have some sort of weakness, and there are enough play styles in the game to exploit those weaknesses no matter what you do. I've personally never been all that great at playing against combo no matter what deck I've played, so using Aggro Loam to give me a better chance against everything else with the occasional loss against combo is a concession I'm very willing to make. I'm not saying that I'm just going to roll over whenever I see a combo deck, because that's just silly. Aggro Loam can still beat combo, it's just harder than it's conventional match-ups and takes a lot more effort on your part for success.

Aggro Loam really does not get bitch-slapped by CB@2.

Agreed. Why is it that everybody thinks counterbalance is the death of aggro loam? It just makes the game a lot harder, not impossible. And there's a limit of how much control counterbalance can give to a player.

[Forbiddian]

Agreed. Why is it that everybody thinks counterbalance is the death of aggro loam? It just makes the game a lot harder, not impossible. And there's a limit of how much control counterbalance can give to a player.

Because Counterbalance is the death of everything. People like to look at a low mana curve and say that it automatically loses. Except Dragonstompy (which was built to beat Countertop), pretty much every deck is wrecked by CT. People have all played around it in some games with virtually every deck, but Countertop is a two card combo is nearly as potent as Painter's Grind.

Aggroloam's saving grace is that it wrecks control completely without Countertop, so if it manages somehow to win through a Countertop, that's almost certainly enough to give it the match win.

[Sims]

I like the deck, though I've only played it on MWS. I don't have the duals required for it and I got rid of my Loams and Crushers a while back so I haven't had all the cards to play it at an actual tournament. I wouldn't be opposed to it but I don't currently have access to the cards needed.

As for why it's not popular in the States? Couldn't tell you. It could be anything from people finding the loam engine to be too slow to too inconsistant, it could be people like me not having the necessary cards (though I'm putting the collection together slowly), and it could be people just not wanting to lose to combo or be bent over the table by Peter_Rotten when he breaks out Burning Tog version 2.0 (now with maindeck Sylvan Library)....

Long story short. Europe and the States (even east and west coast US) have very different playstyles and metagame considerations for whatever reasons and the deck has either just not proven itself enough to catch on or hasn't caught the fancy of people whom can play it.

[Skeggi]

It has a draw engine that requires setup. When the setup does not occur, it does not have a draw engine. Inconsistent.

That set-up is pretty easy to get. All you need to do is cycle through your land, you'll draw that loam soon enough. And there's the set-up.

[Maveric78f]

And if the deck does not have any set up, then it means it got threats like dark confidant, tarmogoyf or crusher. If you are playing a blue based aggro control against aggro loam, then the best play is probably to counterspell the threats and try to win before it gets a board advantage. Let the draw engine be disrupted/slowed down with your GY hate, if any.

[Finn]

That set-up is pretty easy to get. All you need to do is cycle through your land, you'll draw that loam soon enough. And there's the set-up.

It's about the same as Intuition -> stuff. But I play Death and Taxes against these decks and it all ends up the same. When they can't count on their graveyard they have a lot of cards that just don't do much. I'm not suggesting that D+T is causing people to quit this deck in droves. I am pointing out that the engine can be shut off. That makes it inconsistent.

[frogboy]

It's about the same as Intuition -> stuff. But I play Death and Taxes against these decks and it all ends up the same. When they can't count on their graveyard they have a lot of cards that just don't do much. I'm not suggesting that D+T is causing people to quit this deck in droves. I am pointing out that the engine can be shut off. That makes it inconsistent.

The word 'inconsistent' does not mean what you think it means. Decks that have wildly variable draws are inconsistent. Decks that do things that other decks can sometimes disrupt are not.

I'm also pretty sure that both Aggro Loam and Intuition/Counterbalance control decks murder D&T.

[Pulp_Fiction]

I played it a lot at my local card shop and consistently made the top 4 for around 2 months (tournaments are every wednesday), then I just got really bored of the deck. The deck becomes very monotonous after a while, you just play the same cards over and over and it gets boring, much like Goblins it just does the same shit over and over. But as far as consistency, out of maybe 30 games you may lose 2-3 and that is rare, this deck is consistency. The problems is it auto-loses to early Stiflenought with Force back-up (like most decks), can't beat Dredge under any circumstances, and wins the combo match around 30-40% of the time depending on Chalice and threat size. It also struggles against anything Mono-U with Back to Basics.

Overall it is one of the most solid decks in the format and I saw someone posted about "rather playing Goblins because they don't die to GY hate", this deck does not die to GY hate aside from Leyline (thats what Burning Wish is for) and it smashes Goblins and literally all aggro decks. I think it isn't played because of how the deck looks, I think a lot of people just look at the deck and go, eh ... (random deck) is better than Aggro Loam which usually is not the case. Also, this deck is a little like Dredge in that its weird to play when you first pick it up, but once you understand the synergies in the deck and how it functions its pretty easy.

[Peter_Rotten]

I relation to the deck's inconsistency, I specifically mean that I sometimes find it to have very explosive turn 2s and sometimes I'm cycling land until turn 4. Putting out a large turn 2 Terravore (in the best situation, it could be 7/7 already!) or Crusher, or playing a turn one Confidant seems great. However, turn two wishing for Loam puts the yawns on the grill. Using Mox Diamond to power out a turn one Goyf is also rarely impressive.

Also, Burning Wish is the type of card that sometimes produces that, "OH SHIT! Thunder-thunder-thunder cats HO!" feeling while you reverse a losing board position. But sometimes it just sorta sits there, flacid, useless, and with nothing worth fetching, just like your granpappie's weewee.

[Nihil Credo]

But sometimes it just sorta sits there, flacid, useless, and with nothing worth fetching, just like your granpappie's weewee.

You mean when you're winning?

[Finn]

The word 'inconsistent' does not mean what you think it means. Decks that have wildly variable draws are inconsistent. Decks that do things that other decks can sometimes disrupt are not.

Wow, that was a bit of an arrogant stance to take. I suppose I should respond in kind.

In this case I am pretty sure I know the definition of this word. Let me check. Yep, I do. OK. You see, when a deck's engine makes that deck win often, we can say that said deck is "consistent". You might even get really cute and say something amazing like ""The deck's engine is consistent." but I don't want to get too high falutin' on this. Anyway, and follow close here, when the engine is easily stopped, a person could reasonably conclude that the deck is "inconsistent". The important point here is that unlike something like "mize" or "mana flood", "inconsistent" has a number of applications outside the game of magic. So you really can't accurately tell me that my usage is incorrect if I apply it differently than you in terms of the game. As long my audience understands my meaning. So the deck needs setup. And when you deny it that setup, you bring out its inconsistency.

I'm also pretty sure that both Aggro Loam and Intuition/Counterbalance control decks murder D&T.

I bet you are. But between the two of us, only one of us has actually played these matchups, ohhh 20 or 30 times combined. Not a huge amount. But enough to keep me from caving to your erroneous conjecture.

[Nihil Credo]

You see, when a deck's engine makes that deck win often, we can say that said deck is "consistent".

Uhm, no. We can say that, but it is not what "consistent" is generally accepted to mean in Magic. See below.

The important point here is that unlike something like "mize" or "mana flood", "inconsistent" has a number of applications outside the game of magic. So you really can't accurately tell me that my usage is incorrect if I apply it differently than you in terms of the game. As long my audience understands my meaning.

The audience won't, because "consistent" has an established meaning in Magic - it indicates a deck that reliably executes its overall strategic plan, and behaves in a similar manner, game after game. Which makes sense, if you stop and think about the word's non-Magic meaning (eg. "this steak-house has consistently out-performed its competition"; "the quality of your sister's blowjobs is inconsistent"). It has absolutely no relation to the power level of the deck: 45x Shock 15x Mountain.dec is a paragon of consistency.
You are welcome to verify that my definition is the standard one by browsing through the galaxy of Magic articles and forum threads.

[Finn]

Yes, and a deck of 60 swamps consistently has a hard time blocking Bog Wraiths. And when I pee, I consistently hear the sound of my piss splashing in the bowl. If you aren't talking about a deck executing a strategy to win, nobody cares.

I can see this getting stupid in a hurry so I am exiting the conversation. Good day to you all.

[blacklotus3636]

Yes, and a deck of 60 swamps consistently has a hard time blocking Bog Wraiths. And when I pee, I consistently hear the sound of my piss splashing in the bowl. If you aren't talking about a deck executing a strategy to win, nobody cares.

I can see this getting stupid in a hurry so I am exiting the conversation. Good day to you all.

I laughed my ass off when I read this. Watching magic players debate in this way is so much more fun than playing magic these days.
I'm getting off topic though

The way you presented the term consistent was that even though the deck works fine it is easily disrupted. This is not inconsistent, fragile would probably be more correct but its not that important

I think what we are really talking about here is glass cannon's.(a deck that has positive matchups in almost all areas except one)
The best way to win a tournament for me has always been with glass cannons especially ones that have a strong matchup with everything outside combo. The reason being is that most people don't play combo and if they do it is inconsistent or you can do your best to board for it. Either way its a calculated risk you make when you play the deck. I played survival madness in my meta for a long time because people always brought threshold and goblins which my deck did well against. I always dreaded the combo matchup but it was so infrequent and inconsistent when it was played that it was a non-issue and I did well in most tournaments I played. So yes in a combo lite meta like most meta's aggro loam or 43 lands type decks would tend to fair quite well

[frogboy]

If you aren't talking about a deck executing a strategy to win, nobody cares.

It has a draw engine that requires setup. When the setup does not occur, it does not have a draw engine. Inconsistent.

I guess it's pretty loose when instead of killing your opponent by doing something degenerate with Loam you just go ahead and cast some gigantic idiot and proceed to destroy all their permanents and kill them that way.

I mean.

I bet you are. But between the two of us, only one of us has actually played these matchups, ohhh 20 or 30 times combined. Not a huge amount. But enough to keep me from caving to your erroneous conjecture.

I've played a solid four or five games. I fail to see how the deck full of random x/2s ever beats the deck full of Seismic Assaults, aforementioned giant idiots, and Devastating Dreams, but whatever. The Counterbalance matchup I guess might be close but even the most unreal draws are still pretty kold to stuff like Deed. I'd offer to test it but lol testing etc.

[Forbiddian]

I don't know that Loam beats DnT. I've played a few game 1s and DnT won out 3-1. Given, it was on MWS where most good decks win 75% anyway, but my opponent seemed competent.

3 Orings, 4 Swords, 3 Mangara, 2 Jitte, 2 Grunts... I dunno, the deck seems to stand up to Terravore or Goyf beats pretty well. Very few non-basics (and half of them are flagstones) coupled with fairly high-toughness creatures (at least 2 for most critters, and Avenger has 3 and Grunt has 4) requires high-investment DD to take out.

The game that I lost, the other guy got turn 3 Seismic Assault and turn 4 double life from the loam. I felt that Grunt was at least as much of a bomb as Seismic Assault in those matchups, though.