See yet again you mix up The Rock with Doran Rock. I will say it again. This is not the freaking Rock thread! How hard is that to understand? That's why there's two seperate threads. One for the Rock, and one for Doran Rock.Originally Posted by Jak.
You clearly have no experience at all with Doran Rock in any format, if you did...
There's absolutely no way you would continue to insist that this list isn't Doran Rock.
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=23005
There's no way you would continue to insist that the list in my OP isn't Doran Rock.
And there sure as hell is no way you would claim that either list is not an aggro deck.
Here's a tip. If you never heard of a deck before, if you never played with it, then it's best not to make bullshit assumptions about it.
I have been more-or-less following the discussion and I have 1 nit-pick. The smallest survival engine doesn't require 10+ slots. It takes 4.
(these are changes from the 2nd post on the thread which is supposed to be kept up to date)
-2 Dark Confidant
-1 Tidehollow Sculler
-1 Edict
+3 Survival of the Fittest
+1 Squee/Krovikan Horror
Personally I think this looks stronger than the current configuration (granted I have done zero testing). Hitting Tombstalker off Dark Confidant seems... well, bad. Also, with this list you wouldn't be trying to toss out SotF turn 2, but instead you would usually wait until your resources are exhausted before playing it.
I think that this is a good medium between making the deck to "controllish" and being more aggressive.
Yeah, I think as long as you're not gutting the deck of it's discard, removal (and the incredibly versatile Vindicate), and threat base and instead simply substituting one CA engine with another, the deck would continue to function similarly well.
That said, having played with both the list in the OP and with Survival, I disagree with your claim that it doing so makes the deck stronger.
I personally think you're undervaluing Confidant. Unlike Survival it doesn't require additional mana investment each turn. Unlike Survival, it's card advantage is not vulnerable to all forms of enchantment destruction that is popular these days. Your opponent is forced to choose between killing Confidant, or instead kiling your Goyf. Tombstalker is rarely a problem. But if you're worried about it, cut one so that you only play 2 Tombstalker. You'll only hit a Tombstalker with a Confidant once every 25 times. Essentially, every 25 cards that you draw off of Confidant, you take 8 damage to a Tombstalker. That's definately worth the trade off.
And perhaps most importantly, Confidant actually beats for two each turn assuming that either your discard or removal did it's job well. This ends up mattering pretty often. By turn 5, Confidant singlehandedly takes out a third of your opponent's life total, which is often the extra push needed to finish them off a turn or two turns earlier.
I find it rather harsh that you keep associating me with Captain Hammer, like I stand behind every point he makes. Even worse, comparing me, and Captain Hammer for that matter, with Radley.
I play my own version of the Rock for over a year now, had 6 top8 finishes out of the last 9 tournaments (26 people and more) in the biggest tournaments in Belgium. I'm ranked 42nd of my country so no, I'm not a bad player.
My list:
As you can see, it's not even close to the list posted here. I will never play the list here either as I found it to be inconsistent and needs serious fixing (no offense). So no I don't support the deck posted here for several reasons.Creatures:
4x Tarmogoyf
3x Jotun grunt
3x Shriekmaw
4x Dark Confidant
2x Tombstalker
Artifacts/Enchantments:
3x Sensei's Divining Top
3x Pernicious Deed
Sorcery/Instant:
4x StP
4x Vindicate
4x Thoughtseize
3x Life from the Loam
Land:
1x Volraths Stronghold
3x Mishra's factory
4x Windswepth Heath
2x Bloodstained Mire
3x Wasteland
1x Savannah
2x bayou
3x Scrubland
2x Forest
1x Plains
1x Swamp
Sideboard:
4x Thorn of Amethyst
4x Choke
4x Tormod's Crypt
3x Krosan Grip
First of all, I hate luck in every game, such as poker (don't start on this please!) so I try to make the odds of bad draws as little as possible. Therefor I hate cards like Hymn to Tourach which is complete randomness and a bad card when drawn later in the game. So in my list you'll find very few cards that are situational. I run 3 Life from the Loam without any form of cycle land just to avoid getting mana screwed by bad luck and guess what, it works wonders.
This doesn't mean I'm not opposed to adding Survival. You are against a 2/2 with a nice ability that does see (limited) play yet you'd be willing to play a 1/1 for 1WG. Survival is a bomb card, don't get me wrong, I've often been annihilated when it hits the table just by the advantage and utility it gives to the opponent but the package that comes with it creates a luck factor of having to draw Survival or be stuck with several death cards.
Doran Rock is death once it hits late game. It's very draw dependant and I stated before that I would prefer a form of deck manipulation in the deck. Doran Rock is also slower than agro decks, you said that yourself and I agree completely but the changes you would make would push the deck into an even slower strategy which I doubt to be good. The good thing it does is create a consistency when Survival is on the board but create an even more inconsistency when Survival isn't on the board.
Citanul, yeah i don't know why he mixes us up either. Your list would make more sense in the Rock thread, it doesn't play many of the staples of Doran Rock, like Doran for example.
My OP covers Deed pretty well but I have questions about several of the other cards in your list. I'll start with the two of the cards that imo seem the most questionable...
Why play Jotun Grunt, esp along side Goyf and Stalker when he has such poor synergy with them both? Doesn't he die rather fast? Esp in a build with Goyf and Tombstalker, it just seems like a really poor choice. Why not play a threat like Doran that sticks around and has good synergy with Goyf and Tombstalker? Or in your particular list, since it's The Rock, have you considered Knight of Reliquary?
Why play Wasteland (and Loam + Factories) for one? It doesn't make much sense for your list to go for a mana disrution strategy.
Regardless, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, though I've found a couple of them to be inaccurate.
It wasn't ment for this topic, neither is it a Doran Rock. I just posted it to illustrate that I play a different type of Rock. And I know where it goes as I wrote the opening post of the Rock, which has been borken for several months now *waves fists in anger at admins*.Your list would make more sense in the Rock thread, it doesn't play many of the staples of Doran Rock, like Doran for example.
Wasteland is just a great card, even without Loam I'd play them. It's not about mana denial, it's about winning random games by denying a colour from your opponent when he keeps risky hands. With Loam the card just becomes better and even gives a possible gameplan of destroying your opponents manabase.
As for Factory, which is probably the most debatable choice in the deck, it kills! After a Deed you can instantly attack, it stops a lot of agro decks from going to town by providing an extra blocker after the use of that mana is gone.
Jotun Grunt has poor synergy, so does Confidant with Tombstalker/Shriekmaw, Deed with several low CC cards, 7 colorless mana in a 3 color deck and probably more things you can come up with. It doesn't mean it's not worth running. Grunt's upkeep disrupts a lot of graveyard based strategies, including Survival *sly wink*. Not only that but it's also a big creature for a low CC, giving me time to setup other stuff or bring a fast clock to the table when I gained control.
Lol, I was wondering why the OP of The Rock is completely blank.
Any ideas on when you will post a new primer for that deck? Also, I had a few more questions...
Edit: Nvm, I'll just ask you the questions I have about your Rock list over in The Rock thread as that's more on topic.
You do call this Deed-less Rock. Maybe that's why.
Sorry citanul. I wasn't intending the second part to include you.
Anyway, Captain, you keep posting that same list. You keep telling me about so many results but you only post that one. Why? Also, I have the same threat count as that deck, even more actaully with Heirarch. You keep saying that is a disadvantage of my build (which is untrue, Survival is broken). You also call mine slow but you keep citing a list that plays Eternal Witness. Eww didn't you cut that because it was soo slow?
Also did you just say Survival was easier to hate on than Confidant? Lol.
This thread should be either A) Locked because noone is getting ANYTHING done in it, or B) Locked because it's a waste of time to read people argue about nothing.
Dead or Alive, you're coming with me.
-Robocop-
Question.
Why in the hell would you take a deck from extended, port it into this format, and deny yourself the tools available in this format that aren't accessible in the others which would improve your deck.
Reasoning? Is it a pet deck? Do you really feel that playing extended decks in Legacy without giving yourself the tools available is really the best idea? You're denying yourself access to Pernicious Deed or Survival of the Fittest for what reason? Deed doesn't play nice with Sculler/Doran or Goyf? Doesn't play nice with CB either but I seem to recall It's the Fear making splashes around the world. Survival is too slow? The resiliency and overpowering card advantage granted by the engine allows you to win games that you might in other cases run out of steam. I think it would be one or the other, but what my main boggle has become is trying to figure out what strengths or benefits there are in forgoing two of the most powerful cards available to the archtype that are no longer in extended, that would certainly still impact extended were they legal.
It just doesn't make any sense!
tl;dr version: How is this version of BGW Disruptive Aggro any better than the options that are currently available, and why wouldn't this deck benefit from the addition of things available in our cardpool that are not available in the formats you're porting this deck from?
Team Albany: What's Legacy?
You cannot know the sweetness of Victory, without first dwelling in the agony of Defeat.
I have to agree with Sims here. Until I see a detailed list of why exactly this is better than the Rock, I won't take it seriously. I mean, Deed is too much of a powerhouse to not play. And Survival is a house as well. Yes it can be removed, but if I recall, Survival plays tutors and Witness to get Survival back online in short order.
I want a list of why this is better than the Rock or Survival.
Yes and yes. And for a dozen other reasons that I already explained multiple times.
This is Doran Rock, this is NOT It's the Fear. So why are comparing it to It's the Fear?
Doran Rock is a deck that generally win on the same turn as Eva Green, and it does it while playing cards like StP and Vindicate. That's why I play the deck.
It seems you don't realize this, but It's the Fear is a CONTROL deck.
Why are you asking why control cards are not in an aggro deck?
This deck adopts all of the aggro tools that Legacy gives it, including StP.
Asking why an aggro deck doesn't adopt control elements doesn't make any sense.
If you want to play It's the Fear, play It's the Fear.
If you want to play The Rock, play the Rock.
It's not like Rock players and It's the Fear players don't have your threads for your own decks.
This thread is for people who want to play Doran Rock so that it can continue to top 8 in legacy.
If you are interested in playing, in further developing and in refining Doran Rock, then and only then should you post in this thread.
If you instead opt to play It's the Fear. That's fine. But discuss that deck in it's own thread.
I already explained this multiple times throughout the thread...
Once again, if you want to play The Rock, play the Rock.
For the dozenth time The Rock is a different deck. It has it's own thread. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?
Doran Rock is a deck that generally win on the same turn as Eva Green, and it does it while playing cards like StP and Vindicate. That's why I play the deck.
It's not hard to figure out the situations where an early game deck is preferable to a midgame deck.
This thread is for people who want to play Doran Rock so that it can continue to top 8 in legacy.
If you are interested in playing, in further developing and in refining Doran Rock, then and only then should you post in this thread.
If you instead opt to play The Rock. That's fine. But discuss that deck in it's own thread. Not here.
If you are interested in playing, in further developing and in refining Doran Rock, then and only then should you post in this thread.
We're not hating on the deck for no productive reason. We're trying to decide whether its worth playing without Survival or Deed... in effect, we're trying to refine the list and decide what is optimal (Deed, Survival, none of the above)
Swords to Plowshares is hardly an aggressive card.
You seem to think you're playing a pure beatdown deck now.
I didn't once say I wanted to play the Rock. I didn't say I want to play ITF. You can settle down a little bit, breathe, and calmly explain to me how this deck is superior to either of those, or Survival. That's what I asked for, not a rant about how "It's different!!! OMG NOT THE SAME!! LOLZ!!!1!1!"
Take a deep breath and say "Here is how this deck is better than X or Y. This is how it fares. This is why I don't play Deed or Survival, even though many other decks that run the same cards do."
Relax. It's just a game.
You're welcome to read the OP, where I explained in detail multiple times why Deed doesn't make sense in the deck.
You're welcome to read the multiple times through out the thread where I explained in detail why Survival doesn't make any sense in the deck.
Everything you're asking for has already been answer a dozen times already.
Okay then, why don't you go have that discussion with Zoo players.
They seem to be under the impression that they play an aggressive deck. But clearly you know better.
Zoo actually has been cutting StP lately, because of the life gain aspect.
From deckcheck.net, of which you seem to be rather fond:
Most played Cards for this Deck-Type (Zoo): (that are not Basic-Lands or Snow-Basics)
Kird Ape · Wooded Foothills · Wild Nacatl · Tarmogoyf · Lightning Bolt · Windswept Heath · Dark Confidant · Lightning Helix · Gaddock Teeg · Krosan Grip · Taiga · Tribal Flames · Jötun Grunt · Vexing Shusher · Vindicate · Plateau · Bloodstained Mire · Gaea's Might · Tin Street Hooligan · Chain Lightning
And you're now arguing that Zoo doesn't play StP.
Good for you. But you should tell the players here that as well...
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=12624
Because just about all of them seem to be making the mistake of playing 4 StP in every single zoo deck they run.
If you tried the list, you would realize just how remarkably similar to Eva Green this deck plays out. Eva Green doesn't play Deed, though it plays the same colors. This deck adopts a similar strategy and wins on the same turn as Eva Green.
You're mis-representing the statement. I made a comparison about using a card that is one of the strongest tools available at removal, i.e keeping things from eating your face, and one of the main arguments I've found is that you do not like that blowing a deed will destroy your Sculler/Goyf/Doran. The comparison I made was to another deck that uses Deed to keep things from eating it's face, despite the anti-synergy with permanents it uses to win the game. Yes, ITF is a control deck (and a good song), but it also relies on low casting cost permanents to win the game such as Goyf and CB. Your deck relies on low casting cost permanents to win the game (Sculler, Goyf, Doran, Bob, etc.)... Seeing a comparison here? Yes, they win in two completely different manners, but they still both must resolve low-cc permanents to win the game. One still successfully employs Deed despite the anti-synergy, I fail to see why your deck could not benefit from the same tool. I believe one person said it in this thread already, but if losing a Goyf means keeping a horde of Zombies, Goblins, More Goyfs, Grim Lavamancers, Merfolk, Faeries, Soldier Tokens, Angel Tokens, Grindstones, Painter's Servants, et al, from destroying your face or killing you.... Where's the problem?
It seems as if you are trying to take an extended deck, put good lands in it, and say "Hai bee, letz change the world tomorrow with this shuper shweet new deck, kay guise? el oh el Ron Paul!!one1!" without actually putting any of the teeth into the deck that the Legacy cardpool provides.
Legacy gives you Deed. Legacy gives you Survivial. Legacy gives you more options and a chance to run with a really wide range of decks that can win anywhere from turn 1 to 20, and a lot that do it in 1-4... Why gimp yourself at the sake of maintaining that you are an individual archtype that is nothing more than an underpowered bastard child of two other archtypes? You can stay Doran rock and run Deed. You can stay Doran rock and run Survival. You're sounding like me when I was winning with Vial Goblins (sans Lackey) and people were telling me to run Lackey anyways back in 04/05 after the list split. Take some advice, just because you can doesn't mean it's optimal, and cards that will make your deck stronger and more resilient are not a bad thing nor is adding cards that your cardpool provides that extended doesn't. That's why they call them ports.
Team Albany: What's Legacy?
You cannot know the sweetness of Victory, without first dwelling in the agony of Defeat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
