I have not tested it in a tournament, but I did test it in 10 games on MWS against a decent gauntlet of Threshold, Merfolk, Zoo, Ant, and 1 Enchantress deck. In game 1, I found that it did not matter whether or not I had Sharuum; as long as my yard was intact, I was going to win no matter what they did. In games 2 and 3, I found myself wanting a better DR target, like Hypnotist or Iona. I found that DR and Sharuum were sitting around in the yard for a turn or 2 just waiting to be hated, because I could not complete the combo for lack of the second Sharuum and/or a bridge. Now, you could contest that MWS testing is insufficient, in which case I urge you to submit other testing data that proves Sharuum's viability.Originally Posted by jimirynk
In order to accomodate Sharuum, in the list posted above, you have essentially neutered the Dread Return package. In order for DR to be effective, you need at least 3 other cards in the graveyard; Sharuum, Sharuum, and Bridge. Before the modifications, DR could combo alone with Hypnotist, FKZ, Iona, etc. If your opponent had no graveyard hatred, that meant you did not have to wait for more cards to bring something beefy back. Now you do. This is a loss of speed and consistency that the deck cannot afford.
Importing an idea from Vintage to Legacy is not inherently bad. Indeed some of those imports can be quite powerful. But when you neglect the other cards that are lost in the import (for example, Bazaar), then it is a subpar transition. The Vintage version of Dredge has a totally different field of threats than does the Legacy version. It also has different tools at its disposal. Ichorid is unquestionable a deck that can use improvement or innovation. I am not trying to crush that. I am, however, saying that Sharuum is a sub-optimal way to improve the LEGACY version of the deck. Perhaps the reason that Sharuum has not appeared in many tournaments is because it is widely understood to be suboptimal.
-ktkenshinx-
Game 2/3 board out 3 sharuum, 1 alter, 4 breakthrough for 2 tribes, 1 Iona, 1 chosen, 4 hate cards..
Is that so hard??
Leave in sharuum vs the match-ups its needed in.
I just feel like the current meta might be calling for something stronger than a DR Iona..
interesting.......have you missed my post? If you need any more details about my games just let me know...
I have tested Sharuum, both with people, and in a tournament. Though not on MWS, since that's pointless. I've tested the combo both with, and without LED. I've tested it with Bloodghast, Ichorid, and a split.
I won't say it's awful, but it is worse. Worse than LED-less, far worse than LED, and about equal with Bloodghast builds. While it solves some problems, they are not problems that cannot be raced by the LED version. While it can be removed for slots post-board, these slots are far inferior to the post-board plan of the LED-less version. It also does create some vulnerabilities, due to the necessary recursion, to creature and artifact removal that is not normally relevant. The Ichorid version could still lose to creature removal during upkeep, and the Bloodghast version could still lose to problems with not having a replayable land; since this version is almost entirely dependant on combo-ing off.
But basically, it's too slow and clunky. While you can use Sharuum and Altar to continue into the combo, you lose the invunerability to Bridge removal you normally have with this version. If you only have one piece in the yard,(Sharuum, Altar, DR) the rest are useless. Although I will say in the LED-less build, that hardcasting Altar is the absolute sickness. But unless you expect a tournament dominated by Life, Lands, and Moat, this is too slow and draw-dependant.
Last edited by Parcher; 01-27-2010 at 03:13 PM.
~ Team Unicorn Motto
I can see the flaws as all of you can but with probably more games played and definitely more tournament plays than all of you I don't disregard an idea because you all say it doesn't sound good..
How many GAME ONE's did you mulligan to either a slow hand or had a break through or study forced and your slowly dredging once a turn.
DR a Iona isn't going to save you, Chosen will but sharuum not only get's you out of the hole it wins you the game.
I don't know I'm going to test it and probably run it through a vestal torn before I listen to players who I don't know if I can even take their testing into consideration.
O I'll say this before a shit storm, I don't have more testing with LED dredge the parcher but I had a YEAR of testing with that as my main deck but shifted my deck for the meta but I know I have more testing with LEDless dredge then you parcher.
Stop baiting each other. Some of this discussion is really good. Some of it is not.
This is also an excellent time to call people's attention to the site rules requiring proper spelling and grammar.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
What Force of Will decks have a significant clock? Tarmogoyf, sure, but you can put Tribe or Zombies in front of that dude for a long time.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
I don't know I must be the only person to have lost a game 1 to a force before..
Bant, Nobant, fae, any thresh deck and more..
Have you really never lost a game to a force blowing you out and your DDD plan being to slow to come back?
The situation you are assuming is the following:
You didn't know your opponent was Blue, and mulliganned, and,
Your opponent had Force of Will or was on the play with Daze, and,
You either didn't have additional outlets or they, too were countered and,
Your opponent has multiple large animals clocking you and,
You were still able to begin dredging somehow and,
Despite not resolving Breakthrough or activating Coliseum you still hit two Sharuums, and,
A 12/12ish Grave-Troll would have been insufficient to win the game.
You realize what a corner case that is, right?
Now, how many games are you losing because you have four blanks in your deck?
edit: I have lost two game ones in tournaments to Force of Will decks. One was against Merfolk; he had Cursecatcher, Wasteland, Daze, and Force. I was DDDing, but was flipping blanks, and I only had one land to cast Tribe. It was countered, and he had Wasteland. The other game was against Bant Survival. I punted, didn't DDD, and by the time I started dredging through three counterspells, he had Tarmogoyf clocking me. I missed on Narcomoeba in fifteen cards or Ichorid + Bridge in ten. Both of those games were very close.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
How do you know how much I've tested anything? Or how much I've played it? I certainly wouldn't make the same assumptions about someone I don't know.I just posted my results. Is there another reason you feel the need to compare your experience with the deck to mine?
Regardless, what difference does it make? Nassif probably had less experience with Legacy CounterTop than 99% of others playing it at Chicago. He still won the whole thing. Results are what matter. You can play the same deck 100 times a day for five years. That doesn't mean you have any idea how to do so correctly.
~ Team Unicorn Motto
The problem is simple. In the matchups that Sharuum is helpful, it turns out to be, well, not that helpful. It forces you to overcommit in your dredging and discarding in order to assemble your combo pieces, a cardinal sin against decks that can wipe out a graveyard. When Lands/Enchantress boards in its graveyard hate in games 2 and 3, then you are left with two options. Either remove the Sharuum combo and switch to something more conventional, in which case, there was no point in including it in the first place. Alternately, you can leave the combo in the deck and open yourself up to hatred. Ichorid is fairly resilient in its current incarnation. Sharuum encourages overextension, which is the best way to throw away that resilience.
1. You keep condescendingly mentioning this to experienced players. First of all, it is ineffective, as many of us have had ample tournament experience. Second of all, you neglect to actually mention any of your own testing results with Sharuum, whereas a number of players have continued to offer evidence opposed to Sharuum's inclusion. You continue to offer theoretical examples of Sharuum's effectiveness, which is countered time and time again by evidence-based examples of its ineffectiveness.I can see the flaws as all of you can but with probably more games played and definitely more tournament plays than all of you I don't disregard an idea because you all say it doesn't sound good..
How many GAME ONE's did you mulligan to either a slow hand or had a break through or study forced and your slowly dredging once a turn.
2. If you are slowly dredging once a turn, then how is Sharuum going to help you? If anything, it decreases your chances of winning the first game, because you need to slowly dredge into more cards. You can't just slow dredge into one Sharuum. You have to dredge into 2, plus a Bridge, plus a DR! If you can manage that, then you might as well stick with the conventional Ichorid dredge strategy.
I would be willing to listen and consider an evidence-based discussion of Sharuum combo in this deck, as would, I imagine, other players. But currently this is not happening. Just because a combo is cool and just because you personally have wedded yourself to its inclusion does not mean it is good. Not by a long shot.
The bottom line remains. By adding Sharuum you willingly forgo the Iona/Hypnotist/FKZ slots. That effectively neuters the random "Dread Return --> I win" factor of the deck. If you have to wait for 2 Sharuum's and a Bridge to get into your yard, you are losing valuable time against your opponent in an effort to do something cool and flashy, but ultimately no less effective than a standard dredge and beat routine.
Frogboy: I agree with your assessment of the situation. It is quite a corner case.
-ktkenshinx-
Have you ever ONCE done well with LEDless dredge in a tornament?
Than how do you know your doing it correctly?
Lands and enchantress bring in ENCHANTMENT cards, I.e leyline, wheel of sun and moon and planer void you WANT to over extend into the graveyard vs. both these decks.
I'll respond more later I have to run.
Have I? How would you know? Have you? Who cares?
This is an INTERNET FORUM. It's a mostly anonymous place for people to share ideas. No one cares what you think you might have accomplished, only about the ieas you post here. Posting awful ideas, continuing to try to reason for them in the face of contradicting fact, then attacking the people who disagree might be entertaining for you, but it won't lend any more weight to your claims.
~ Team Unicorn Motto
I have said numerous times that Sharuum isn't the only correct way to play this deck but I have also listed why you might play it and supported my statements by saying I will test this deck and run it through a tornament.
I am not attacking people that don't agree, I'm disagreeing with everyone who says sharuum is bad until I test enough to come to MY OWN conclusion.
Parcher if everyone told you unmask was bad and careful study was better would you just drop the idea of unmask or would you test the card till you realize it is better and say SCREW everyone's opinion because at the end of the day your still better than 95% of people that post on this site.
@Frogboy
Do you have a list?
I don't see any benefits .... at all of playing Sharuum. Unless you play in a meta that is 80% Lands! and Enchantress decks (in which case you should play storm combo) there is not a single reason to play it aside from the cool factor. It does nothing against hate, takes up slots, makes you more reliant on dredges, and occassionally doesn't win the game immediately. It even takes up more slots that 1x FKZ and 1x Sphinx. And if you run it in the board so you can actually have a shot at beating Enchantress or Lands! then other matchups will suffer since you just took up 3-5 slots in the board. I can't see any reason to play this at all. Seems like someone is trying to solve a problem that isn't even a problem ...
"I just shot Marvin in the face!"
"Why the fuck'd you do that??"
Losing to MD hate cards isn't a problem?
I mean I know this sounds blah (one reason is because everyone's shitting on it) but do you win 80% of game ones?
What is that 20% your losing to?
Now will that 80% increase or decrease with Sharuum MD?
I don't see it going down game 1 I see it either staying the same or maybe increasing do to it improving 2 of our bad MU's.
How many of you less then a month ago cut all DR targets from the main, why?
Bc this deck can win game 1 without DR anything.. The DR targets are outs to situations you were going to lose otherwise.
Now how can you fit 2 more cards into the deck without hurting the game one win percentages.
Still I'm not saying this is correct but I'm testing this so I know for myself the answers to these questions.
Look, I like the idea. A lot. So much that I bugged the hell out of my teammates running ideas and testing by them. The bottom line was that I couldn't make it better, even in game one against Lands etc., than current versions. This is what I know. Stating that you know more, or have tested more than me is not going to change my opinion, just like none of this is changing your opinion. But if you are so set on your own testing that you aren't interested in other's ideas and experiences on the subject, honestly, why bring it up?
~ Team Unicorn Motto
I post everything I do with the deck, keep it all on file plus a lot of people read this and make decisions for themselves.
I've always wanted a kill with this deck that doesn't require an attack phase, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, and also to give the deck some versatility. I've even tried Kamahl, Pit Fighter to deal the last few points of damage upon the opponent casting a Propaganda or whatever. I'm stll on the fence regarding the Sharuum kill, but at the very least, I think it adds a dimension to the deck that it hasn't had before.
The Source: Your Source for "The Source: Your Source for..." cliche.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote