[Mini-discussion] Aggro Loam and the USA

[Mantis]

In Holland there's a ton of Loam decks around, but a lot of those are actually the GWB variant that plays a lot less aggressive and more control centric with Eternal Witness, Deed and STP. I really don't if this version is better than the red one, I honestly don't think so as you lose Devastating Dreams, Seismic Assault and Burning Wish and you gain some mediocre contro elements. Instead of just winning the game you just have to prey you can dig yourself out of the hole created during the first couple of turns. You also lose consistency with the loss of Burning Wish.

I am not sure what all the fuss about Loam lacking consistency is about. While it's probably not as consistent as for example Threshold or Goblins I see few problems. The argument that the graveyard can be shut off and then the engine falls apart counts for every deck. A well timed Deed against D&T also rips the deck apart, does that make it inconsistent? A turn 1 Chalice @ 1 makes life very difficult for Threshold, yet Threshold is one of the most consistent decks. Aggro Loam has little trouble starting up it's engine, but like every other engine it can be stopped by the right combination of cards.
But Nihil Credo has already explained it better than I ever could.

An example of an inconsistent yet powerful deck is Dragon Stompy, which needs the right combination of manasources, all Spirit Guides and Ritual effects or all Mountains is not effective you really need the right mix. Also, it needs the right combination of threats and disruption, all disruption is bad as it allows for a window in which the opponent can draw himself out of the hole and all threats is also bad as the opponent can excecute his own gameplan and is thus very likely to deal with the Arc Sloggers and Rakdos Pit Dragons you throw at him. All Aggro Loam needs is land + Loam and after that threats. And while Loam isn't as consistent as Threshold, which runs card selection to get exactly what it needs, Loam is consistent enough to comfortably compete with the decks to beat.

[FoolofaTook]

I am not sure what all the fuss about Loam lacking consistency is about. While it's probably not as consistent as for example Threshold or Goblins I see few problems. The argument that the graveyard can be shut off and then the engine falls apart counts for every deck. A well timed Deed against D&T also rips the deck apart, does that make it inconsistent?.

Any deck that relies largely on the graveyard is going to be inconsistent over a large number of events, because when good decks really want to shut down your graveyard they can do it. If you don't have a lot else going for you you're going to be at the mercy of their post-sideboard gameplan either functioning or not. That's not a good place for a high level deck to be: relying on the opponent to get screwed by a bad draw or a god draw on your part.

This is also true for decks that rely on an extended board position in order to win, but the difference is that the graveyard can be shut down almost immediately in some cases and at very low cost in others. It's harder to get a deed in play with enough mana to use it effectively than it is to drop Leyline or Crypt or Wheel.

I still don't completely understand why competitive players choose to extend their vulnerability by relying heavily on the graveyard. It's not like adding the graveyard to the areas that can be attacked by the opposing player somehow magically shuts off the vulnerabilities in other areas in most cases. If you have a choice to fight effectively on two fronts (the hand and the board) or three fronts (the hand, the board and the graveyard) why make your profile so much larger and harder to defend? I do understand that Ichorid effectively substitutes the graveyard for the hand once it's gotten rolling, however I still don't understand why playing with an open hand in which every key card is vulnerable to attack and the threat of a massive Mind Twist (effectively) is always lurking is justified by the attempt to access a much larger resource base. It doesn't seem to add up given the strength of the overall meta.

[blacklotus3636]

Any deck that relies largely on the graveyard is going to be inconsistent over a large number of events, because when good decks really want to shut down your graveyard they can do it. If you don't have a lot else going for you you're going to be at the mercy of their post-sideboard gameplan either functioning or not. That's not a good place for a high level deck to be: relying on the opponent to get screwed by a bad draw or a god draw on your part.

This is also true for decks that rely on an extended board position in order to win, but the difference is that the graveyard can be shut down almost immediately in some cases and at very low cost in others. It's harder to get a deed in play with enough mana to use it effectively than it is to drop Leyline or Crypt or Wheel.

I still don't completely understand why competitive players choose to extend their vulnerability by relying heavily on the graveyard. It's not like adding the graveyard to the areas that can be attacked by the opposing player somehow magically shuts off the vulnerabilities in other areas in most cases. If you have a choice to fight effectively on two fronts (the hand and the board) or three fronts (the hand, the board and the graveyard) why make your profile so much larger and harder to defend? I do understand that Ichorid effectively substitutes the graveyard for the hand once it's gotten rolling, however I still don't understand why playing with an open hand in which every key card is vulnerable to attack and the threat of a massive Mind Twist (effectively) is always lurking is justified by the attempt to access a much larger resource base. It doesn't seem to add up given the strength of the overall meta.

I call bullshit on this. If graveyard dependant strategies were really inconsistent then decks like threshold wouldn't be any good at all. Any engine that is strong is going to have weaknesses, that's inherent in ANY deck. This seems to be degenerating into "x card doesn't matter because I have counterspell" argument. You don't judge a deck or a card's strength by how you deal with it because you wouldn't say ancestral recall is bad just because people play counterspells. This whole line of thinking is fundamentally flawed

[FoolofaTook]

I call bullshit on this. If graveyard dependant strategies were really inconsistent then decks like threshold wouldn't be any good at all. Any engine that is strong is going to have weaknesses, that's inherent in ANY deck. This seems to be degenerating into "x card doesn't matter because I have counterspell" argument. You don't judge a deck or a card's strength by how you deal with it because you wouldn't say ancestral recall is bad just because people play counterspells. This whole line of thinking is fundamentally flawed

Threshold has very little dependency on the graveyard at this point. Beyond Nimble Mongoose it has almost none.

Ichorid and Aggro Loam have huge graveyard dependencies.

[Arkham]

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.

It does. And I've done it numerous times in tournaments. But it greatly depends on whose piloting DnT and whether they can lock me down in time before I can get control of the board.

Generally, Aggro Loam can take control of the board in that kind of a match-up and keep it, but there are times when even you can lose a good match-up. Wednesday I played Swan Thresh in the top which is a very good match-up for Aggro Loam, but even with the odds stacked against him, my friend managed to pull it out. It happens.

I think there's a big misconception that just because the odds are largely stacked in your favor for a wide range of decks with aggro loam, people expect an automatic win. I don't really care what deck your playing with, even with aggro loam, you shouldn't expect any game to just be handed to you.

Any deck that relies largely on the graveyard is going to be inconsistent over a large number of events, because when good decks really want to shut down your graveyard they can do it. If you don't have a lot else going for you you're going to be at the mercy of their post-sideboard gameplan either functioning or not. That's not a good place for a high level deck to be: relying on the opponent to get screwed by a bad draw or a god draw on your part.

What are you saying? That just because Aggro Loam is dependent on it's graveyard it'll grow inconsistent because of it being hated on? I don't know if you've ever played the deck before, but there's a reason why Aggro Loam has a toolbox sideboard. I encourage people to waste space with extirpates and tormod's crypts to hate against my deck because I know how to cope with it. Aggro Loam may have a large part of it's deck slots dedicated to the graveyard, but it can still win games even without access to it's graveyard and I've done it numerous times.

I repeat, you can win games without the use of your graveyard when playing aggro loam. Seismic Assault, Countryside Crusher, Terravore and Tarmogoyf, anybody? They still work when your opponent still has a graveyard and I haven't see a deck hate against me yet that can remove both graveyards, all my alterior options, and lock me out of the game because that's probably what it'll take to keep me from getting control of the board again.

I haven't come across a game yet where my opponent is able to use every hate card at his disposal to leave me out of options to try and re-group. Because not only is it very unlikely, I think it'd be very hard to do in the first place. Especially if I can see it coming.

Saying that some graveyard based decks are inconsistent because of hate in a meta is easy when talking about Ichorid or Cephalid Breakfast, but I don't think you can lump a deck like Aggro Loam which has answers to pretty much any situation in a statement like that.

[jazzykat]

I recently played it to a 5-0 first place finish in a local tourney. There was 1 combo deck of consequence and I was lucky and wasn't paired against it. I mowed down absolutely everything else.

I love playing the deck and chalice=1 is such a beating vs. the field. That said I probably won't break it out for a little while because for me it is more like a "change up" deck (i.e. You have to gauge the metagame right and either graveyard hate (to a lesser extent), or combo will get you. This is akin to a baseball change up, everyone expects me to play blue every week and when I don't all their hate cards are trash).

[Wiw]

I don't play it because it's a Loam deck which are pretty slow and boring as hell to play.

Mmmm yeah it does take a while to maximize life from the loam but it's actually a thoroughly solid card. And it's fun to cycle and dredge and get a massive hand advantage and big fat creatures. You just have to survive for like, four turns then win. However, I guess it's a little agonizing to watch your opponent dredge and cycle all day, though it's not as bad as something like Enchantress or Mono Blue Control by any means.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

I've recently done some testing with Aggro Loam, and it doesn't seem that great. The card advantage engine of Life from the Loam was mana intensive, venerable, and slow. The potency of Devastating Dreams was lack luster. Damage based creature sweepers are very bad against anything that isn't Goblins and the mana denial isn't worth the card disadvantage of dumping your hand.

The Aggro part of Aggro Loam, however, was good. Terravore and Country Side Crusher can end a game all on there own.

[Volt]

You people who are "playtesting" Aggro-Loam and somehow coming to the conclusion that it isn't a freaking steamroller need to re-examine your testing techniques. It is clearly a Tier 1 powerhouse that is just being blatantly ignored on this side of the Atlantic.

[Deep6er]

Not to be a dick and argue semantics, but if it was "clearly" a powerhouse, we wouldn't be arguing about it.

Feel free to enlighten us as to how we should be testing. Is it to always have Mox Diamond in your opening hand? How are we fucking up?

How are we blatantly ignoring it? Look at the discussion here.

"I've tested it, and I like it, but don't have the cards for it."

"I like it a lot."

"Yeah, it's pretty insane."

Is it that while playing Aggro Loam you're not allowed to lose?

I tested it, and I didn't like it. So, does that mean that besides the fact that my testing is obviously flawed, I'm stupid? What does that mean?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

You people who are "playtesting" Aggro-Loam and somehow coming to the conclusion that it isn't a freaking steamroller need to re-examine your testing techniques. It is clearly a Tier 1 powerhouse that is just being blatantly ignored on this side of the Atlantic.

You going to make some actually counter points there, champ? I came up with flaws and justifications, you just said, "ur doin it wrong."

[Volt]

I'm not terribly interested in getting into any of the tediously circular arguments that most of the bloviating egomaniacs in this forum like getting into. I'll just point out that your post wasn't exactly convincing or chock full of data, either. Want more info? Go read the thread in the DTB forum, where it has been for quite a while.

[Sims]

I'm not terribly interested in getting into any of the tediously circular arguments that most of the bloviating egomaniacs in this forum like getting into. I'll just point out that your post wasn't exactly convincing or chock full of data, either. Want more info? Go read the thread in the DTB forum, where it has been for quite a while.

While I do agree that the deck is woefully underplayed in the states, it does seem rather counter-intuitive to the cause of getting people to play the deck if you just say "The deck is Clearly Tier 1, and if you don't think so, you're doing it wrong." It's inflammatory and you dismiss peoples concerns about the deck and what their testing came up with by saying "NO U!"

If you want to bring people around, help. They may very well have been testing wrong, but you could at least try to give pointers for specifics instead of just saying "you guys suck, I'm out like a fat kid in dodgeball."

[Volt]

While I do agree that the deck is woefully underplayed in the states, it does seem rather counter-intuitive to the cause of getting people to play the deck if you just say "The deck is Clearly Tier 1, and if you don't think so, you're doing it wrong." It's inflammatory and you dismiss peoples concerns about the deck and what their testing came up with by saying "NO U!"

If you want to bring people around, help. They may very well have been testing wrong, but you could at least try to give pointers for specifics instead of just saying "you guys suck, I'm out like a fat kid in dodgeball."

There's a freaking thread in the DTB forum. What more do you people want? I have no idea what the naysayers are doing wrong. I just know they must be doing something wrong, because the deck rocks. I'm not just talking about my own personal experiences with the deck, either. The deck has put up Big Time results in Europe.

Now I'm out like the fat kid in dodgeball.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

There's a freaking thread in the DTB forum. What more do you people want?.

People want justification, well, at least I do. I made points about the decks flaws. You told me to read though the thread. You want me to make your argument for you. When told that that argument won't work and that's the point of this discussion, you reiterate, "You're doing it wrong" and leave.

So, to any one who actually wants to defend this deck, I repeat;

I've recently done some testing with Aggro Loam, and it doesn't seem that great. The card advantage engine of Life from the Loam was mana intensive, venerable, and slow. The potency of Devastating Dreams was lack luster. Damage based creature sweepers are very bad against anything that isn't Goblins and the mana denial isn't worth the card disadvantage of dumping your hand.

The Aggro part of Aggro Loam, however, was good. Terravore and Country Side Crusher can end a game all on there own.

[Volt]

"Venerable" means respectable or sacred. I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is 'vulnerable.'

Calling Devastating Dreams "lack luster" (lackluster is one word, btw, but w/e) and then referring to it strictly as a "creature sweeper" shows that you don't understand its function in the deck. Killing creatures is nice, but what almost always makes your opponent scoop on the spot is destroying all his lands while leaving yourself with a huge Terravore or Crusher on the board.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

"Venerable" means respectable or sacred. I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is 'vulnerable.'

If Opera induced word usage errors are what it takes to draw you out then so be it.

Calling Devastating Dreams "lack luster" (lackluster is one word, btw, but w/e) and then referring to it strictly as a "creature sweeper" shows that you don't understand its function in the deck.

When I refer it as a creature sweeper, I mean the case in which there are creatures out, and you need them dead.

Killing creatures is nice, but what almost always makes your opponent scoop on the spot is destroying all his lands while leaving yourself with a huge Terravore or Crusher on the board.

So what you mean, is that, Devastating Dreams is only good when you're in a good board position? Isn't there a term for a card that only helps you when you're already winning?

[Volt]

See, this is what I meant about going in circles. I know I'm right, and you've decided you're not going to admit you're wrong, no matter what. After all, nobody on The Source can ever admit they might be wrong about something. It's in the bylaws or something. If I continue this debate with you, this is what we'll have:



I have work to do, and even if I didn't, I'd still have better things to waste my time on.

[Obfuscate Freely]

See, this is what I meant about going in circles. I know I'm right, and you've decided you're not going to admit you're wrong, no matter what.

10/10 would be trolled again.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

See, this is what I meant about going in circles.

This isn't a circle. Progress has been made. Here is how the discussion has gone so far;

• Devastating Dreams is a bad creature sweeper.
  • Devastating Dreams should only be used to clear the board so you can get your creatures in that tun.
    • Isn't that win more?
      • I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ANYMORE.

I know I'm right, and you've decided you're not going to admit you're wrong, no matter what. After all, nobody on The Source can ever admit they might be wrong about something.