To whoever said that they understand why people run 4 Birds for consistency, but only run a couple because they suck as a topdeck... that's exactly why Shaman is so good. They aren't shitty topdecks in the midgame, and they provide the same awesome accel in the early game.
Playing only 2 feels wrong. If your deck is structured like Maverick, or in other words you take full advantage of the mana ramp, you should probably be running 4. At 2, you're going to be using your GSZ's for Arbors alot more often... where if you had more Shaman's, you could save GSZ for grabbing threats instead. And a turn 1 Shaman is so much better than a turn 1 Arbor, especially in GBW lists.
Running 2 Shaman's feels like running 2 Vial's (analogy to Vial in Vial decks). Same for any mana dork, for that matter.
However, unlike Birds, these guys are actually worthwhile topdecks, good in multiples, and it's not that hard to fit in a few more fetches instead of extra duals/basics to accommodate them.
This is the accelerant that The Rock has been waiting for. There is really no good reason to run Hierarch, Birds, or Moxes anymore (unless your using Loam and Diamonds). Shaman + Decay were the two cards GBW needed to push it over the top and make it worth splashing black for (what I mean by this is that most people seem to prefer straight G/W; Confidant and discard was already enough reason before IMO).
If you are playing a deck not structured around the mana ramp (no GSZ/etc)... then you probably don't want these guys at all. So again, running them as a 2-of still seems wrong.
Last edited by Hanni; 10-17-2012 at 03:48 PM.
I have to disagree with Hanni here. I already have enough turn one action. I'm not in need of more. Few versions of Junk will NEED Shaman to function properly. It will help just about everybody, but I don't think many multiple Shamans is any more important for GSZ versions than for other versions.
Also, I think you're missing a major component when discussing the value of ramping: everyone already does it. Most builds play Mox Diamond. Given that, Shamans are not Vials 1-4 (to reference Hanni's analogy), instead they are Vials #4 or 5 and up. Hence, with 3 Moxen, I'll play 1 Shaman and consider a second. But the card will have to be the next Tarmogoyf (which even the biggest proponents of Shaman will not say) for me to play more than that.
Originally Posted by Tacosnape
Referring to the art on Stasis:
Guys, you gotta read the whole posts, not a single line. I totally agree with Ian (altough I don't run shaman myself). See, the wholoe purpose of zenith is the versatility. If you run shaman + zenith, there is no point on using 4 -he MIGHT be a good target to zenith on the midgame, but you don't want to draw a lot of copies (wich ends the game first, Reliquary or Shaman?).
Also on that RUG issue, why do people that run mox fear Canadian and its variants? You deny their dazes and stifles, and post side if you know how to play, you will leave their submerges stranded in their hands. The match was never really that hard, and abrupt decay only made it easier. Also shaman is smaller than all their threats, and can't be activated more than once per turn so keeping them away from boosting the mongeese seems a bad argument.
Also, (and I know I'm gonna be crucified now) I see a trend of "I found a great (green/white/black) creature, let's put it on Junk" but the primary premise of Junk is the control aspect (the lots of "destroy permanent" spells), not making a horde of critters. Maverick does this better than Junk, with less colors, and with more functionality. If we are running 0 to 4 discard spells, few (if any) permanent removal spells, why even bother using black on the deck?
Lastly, please do not compare shaman with noble hierarch or scavenging ooze, these are totally different cards, it's like comparing Opeth to Amon Amarth.
Mirris, you didn't read my whole post. I was comparing 2 Shaman to 2 Vial for lists running GSZ for Arbor as the other ramp, because GSZ can be used for other things instead. You just mentioned that you were also running 3 Chrome Mox. That's a different story... that's more like running 3 Daze and 2 Spell Pierce, which is a different analogy altogether. I addressed this in my post though, where I said that Shaman is better than Chrome Mox.
Chrome Mox is card disadvantage, and still doesn't provide mana of any color. What plays are you so worried about rushing out there on turn 1 that you are willing to achieve it with Mox? Confidant, SFM, Hymn? The initial card disadvantage nullifies the card advantage gains from those spells, and while I'm sure that's the justification behind why you can afford it, it doesn't change the fact that those plays would be much stronger without the card disadvantage, especially if you lead with a Thoughtseize on turn 2 (with 3 mana via Shaman). While that Mox will eventually become an excess mana source later, the Shaman has alot of other functions. That's not even counting the issue of topdecking a Mox in the midgame vs topdecking a Shaman.
Sughayyer, you mention reading whole posts, but then you didn't even read mine. Running more Shamans DOES increase the amount of Knights you will have access to because you DIDN'T waste GSZ on turn 1 for Arbor instead.
The primary premise of Junk is... there is no primary premise. A quick look through the thread is perfect evidence of that. I posted a Deadguy Rock list a few pages or so back (or Dark Horizons to some)... and yea, that's the sort of lists I wouldn't run Shaman in. Or would I?
Jokes aside, the lists where Shaman would fit in are the lists that people keep posting that are basically Maverick with Dark Confidant and 4-6 pieces of discard, instead of some of Maverick's excess utility (whether that be Libraries, Scryb Rangers, Linvala, or whatever). Those lists aren't even running Decay in the main. Those are the lists where Shaman's belong.
The lists that aren't set up like Maverick? Well, I don't understand why those lists would even waste their time with GSZ... they have enough discard to not need Teeg, Decay to not need Qasali, are able to support Goyf as to not be as reliant on Knight, and GSZ reduces the efficiency of those creatures by making them cost 1 more mana each (which is why you run mana dorks in those lists in the first place).
Hardcasting 4/5 Goyf for 1G is alot more efficient than casting a 2/2 Ooze for 2G via GSZ. To get a 5/5 Ooze via GSZ, to outsize the average hardcast Goyf... you're looking at 2GGGG over the course of however many turns (3 activations).
It's pretty easy to see why GSZ lists would want the Shaman's if you ask me... and pretty easy to see why GSZ would be worse for the lists that don't need the toolbox...
Hanni, you really understand what I meant now. I think you used better words to say the same thing I did.
Maybe, Lavafrogg was right all along, and we need to use separate threads for all these decks... some of them vary so much that it gets hard to call them the same - some decks listed only use the same colors, but are different archetypes altogether.
Once again, I point out, I'm pretty comfortable with my list full of removals and discardsFor the while, the only changes I can see are on the sideboard; I must devise a better plan.
@ Hanni: yes it appears I misread your point. My bad! However, I gotta ask, who would use GSZ -> Arbor as a primary means of ramp in Junk? That is just so so wrong. I see absolutely no reason to be doing that line of play as legitimate ramping!
And speaking of fully reading the posts, I play Mox Diamond, not Chrome Mox.
@ the topic of separate threads: it doesn't seem necessary to me. I see Sugg as having a distinctly aggro build (value mostly from creatures), SDEmatt with a distinctly controlling build (value mostly from spells, especially removal), and me and Daimon having very mid-speed decks (that get value from flexibility/versatility). Most builds I've seen fall into these 3 categories. And there are variations on each family (Hanni's desire for tempo elements in the aggro builds, or Loam variations in the control or mid-speed builds).
However, certain core tenants are shared across all 3 major branches- Dark Confidant, StP, other deck manipulation, almost always Knight, almost always Goyf, other fantastic removal, discard elements, a little acceleration, and many SB cards are in common. The numbers of each varies IMMENSELY, but with so many common threads, I find it hard to see them as disinct deck archetypes
Referring to the art on Stasis:
Sorry for the misunderstanding then.Hanni, you really understand what I meant now. I think you used better words to say the same thing I did.
Your post said 3 Moxes, so I assumed they were Chrome. My bad.@ Hanni: yes it appears I misread your point. My bad. However, I gotta ask, who would use GSZ -> Arbor as a primary means of ramp in Junk? That is just so so wrong. I see absolutely no reason to be doing that line of play as legitimate ramping!
And speaking of fully reading the posts, I play Mox Diamond, not Chrome Mox
GSZ -> Arbor seems like a fine line of play if you're using GSZ... otherwise, why pay G more for your creatures? At the point where you are paying 2GW for Knight of the Reliquary, and at the same time, not trying to consistently ramp turn 1... I would think you would be better off dropping GSZ and the toolbox, and using more efficient replacements. GSZ being a turn 1 mana dork is half of the reason to run that card in the first place, with the other half being the ability to tutor for toolbox creatures. If all you need are more Knights, you could be running Terravore for 1GG, instead of paying 2GW for more Knights. Again, discard + Decay makes up for Teeg/Qasali if you ask me (for non-GSZ lists).
Whether it be Chrome or Diamond, you're negating the advantages of those card advantage spells (Confidant/SFM/Hymn/etc). Sure you get to rush them out on turn 1, but you could instead drop a Shaman, and drop them down on turn 2, along with either Thoughtseize or Mother of Runes or whatever. Some decks are happy losing card advantage for ramp (Stompy, Stax, etc)... but these decks (The Rock and its Millions - of versions, haha) really like their card advantage.
At any rate, my entire point that I was trying to make, was that Shaman should be ran as a 4-of in the lists with ramp, or 0 copies in the lists without, and that running it as a 2-of seems incorrect. It's the same way I use Vial in other aggro decks; either 4 or 0. And if you are using ramp (like Moxes), I think Shaman is the better option.
I think your 4 vs 0 exclamation needs to include all major ramp in this deck: 0 or 4+
Referring to the art on Stasis:
Yes, you are right. The 4 or 0 thing is inclusive of other ramp options... in other words, there's no point in running only 2 pieces of ramp (total). However, I'm also stating that I believe Shaman to be the best ramp spell, and therefore if you are running ramp, you should be running 4 Shaman's first. Then, if you want additional ramp, there is either GSZ/Arbor (the best secondary IMO), Birds, Hierarch, Chrome Mox, or Mox Diamond. The secondary ramp does not need to be run as a 4-of, because you already (should) have 4 Shaman's.
I can see a case being made for a 3/4/1 or 3/3/1 split of Shaman/GSZ/Arbor, for whatever reason (like needing the toolbox creatures). Shaman is still the better ramp option though, and with access to discard/removal/etc, the toolbox shouldn't be as necessary in here as it is in Maverick...
@mirri: Just to clarify, Matt's deck is the aggro, with creatures, mine is the control (6 to 9 discards, 10 to 13 removals) :p
I'm so happy you all patched this all up. I had a short novel I don't need to post now. I'd been at it since 5:30ish (interrupted by work so it was taking me while) and only checked to see if I was missing anything. Didn't even get to finish it upIf you want to see it, it's linked there.
P.s. that may be me saying, "That sucks. Look what I was writing".
P.P.s. you'll have to bring it back to view it correctly (hit preview on the source instead of Submit)
Tinkering with some crafting theory. Here
Damion, regarding the piece of your blog where you mentioned that adding an extra fetchland shrinks Knights... I realize that. I addressed that a page or two back. If your opponent isn't binning any lands themselves during the early game, you just have to bite the bullet. Since you really only need the effect of the mana dork during the first few turns of the game (until you empty your hand or hit enough lands to not need it anymore), it's only going to be a minor shrink to Knight. In comparison, running a couple of extra fetchlands will help compensate for the loss of lands from Shaman. Knight may still end up being smaller than he could have been, but the impact will be significantly reduced. This is also assuming your opponent is not binning any fetchlands, and you're not putting lands into their yard with Wasteland.
I'm not sure if this is a standardized manabase, but it's the only one that was posted on the last page:
Lands (23)
4 Verdant Catacombs
3 Marsh Flats
3 Scrubland
3 Bayou
1 Savannah
1 Forest
1 Swamp
1 Maze of Ith
1 Volrath's Stronghold
1 Karakas
4 Wasteland
From there, I question the need of Sronghold in a list with not only a huge threat density to not need it (since it doesn't actually provide card advantage), but also with Ooze/Shaman eating creatures anyway.
-1 Stronghold
+1 Marsh Flats
From there, I would agree on the usefulness of both Karakas and Maze of Ith. Normally I would question the use of basics in such a color heavy 3-color deck, but since Shaman can be cast by both Forest and Swamp to provide mana of any color, I'll accept the basics and move on.
From there, I could justify cutting a Scrubland and a Bayou for two more fetchlands.
-1 Bayou
-1 Scrubland
+2 Windswept Heath
That still gives 5 actual duals to grab + 2 basics + 1 Karakas + 4 Wasteland, and it's not like you ever need to hit a ton of lands in play at one time (and you have Shamans). Aside from the vulnerability to Stifle (which I'd argue is less important than the increased stability against Wasteland), you actually increase your virtual color sources (or rather, access to specific color sources). Your chances of actually drawing a Scrubland or Bayou is decreased, but your chances of having a Bayou or Scrubland in play is increased (based on whatever you decide to grab with the fetchlands). Not only does your vulnerability to Wasteland decrease, you're entire deck is actually becoming functionally better at providing the correct color sources that you need. To top it all off, with or without Shaman, you're improving your Knight's dramatically. The only serious drawbacks here the increased vulnerability to Stifle, and the additional life loss from fetchlands. The vulnerability to Stifle seems like a wash since your gaining strength at playing around Wasteland (the extra fetches also increase your ability to fetch up basics), and the life loss should be negated by Shaman anyways (plus Batterskull and Jitte if you run those).
Why 6-8 fetchlands is the accepted norm for decks running Knight of the Reliquary is beyond me. I can understand doing so in normal decks (that don't benefit from having extra fetchlands), and especially decks that either want to have a lot of land in play or care about the life loss (typically control decks in both of these cases). This isn't a normal deck. I see no reason, in this manabase, to not cut the two duals for two more fetchlands. The extra 2 fetchlands may not support Shaman enough to compensate for Knight, but once you consider that almost every single deck in the format is running fetchlands and nonbasics (for Wasteland targets)... I guess I just don't see the problem. Any size shrinkage on Knight can be made up for by Shaman being able to ping the opponent for 2 damage a turn vs Birds not doing any damage vs Hierarch providing Exalted... and that's not counting the utility to exile relevant cards from the opponent's graveyard, or the relevance of the life gain against aggressive decks like Burn/Sligh/Zoo/etc.
I will restate again, that the manabase above may not be standard or typical of manabases. I'm just using it as a basis for duscussion, and it was the only decklist (with a manabase) from the previous page. Maybe other people are running additional Horizon Canopies or a Bojuka Bog or something. Canopy does sac itself though, and Bog seems a little redundant in the maindeck with 4 Shaman's (I'd still most definitely include it in the sideboard though).
The new manabase:
Lands (23)
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Marsh Flats
2 Windswept Heath
2 Scrubland
2 Bayou
1 Savannah
1 Forest
1 Swamp
1 Karakas
1 Maze of Ith
4 Wasteland
I'll pull that part in.
If you want this card to be as consistent as possible, you should be adjusting to a maximum number of fetches without disrupting your manabase too much. There is no real argument against that. If you want a better shot at this being a mana source on turn 2, increase the number of lands you can put into the graveyard by turn 2 (fetches, wastes, etc). The issue with that is that you do "bite" into the Knights already laid claim (land base of the deck and the utility lands in it) when you start doing that. @Hanni I'm adding you to this about this point.
Change a Duel into a fetch --> Knight has 1 less fetch available to her.
Change a utility land --> Knight has 1 less "trick" to abuse.
When you start making those tweaks, you change other things as well. It's not as easy as just changing some things in for others. Every card in a list is chosen for a reason. We just have a case where, Card A may be able to be flat out replaced with Card B.
What I was getting at wasn't that the number of lands in the grave would be lower but that the number of times you can use Knight would decrease.
I agree that, with the increased fetch count, you increase the rate and consistency of the growth for Knight's overall power/toughness (and pretty much all of your post). the interesting part is that, from the example (we have a starting point!), above by cutting the number of times you use knight to 6 (5 duels and 1 basic) you're creating a vulnerability in knight that can be capitalized on more easily by LD (wasteland mainly) and even Crypts which when fired will hurt a lot more as there are so few actual fetches you're able to capitalize on.
That's without actually fixing the manabase to survive wasteland/lock (as you mentioned) and limiting the number of tricks. Those Tricks are the main reason we don't play Goyf over Knight - as we can usually kill off opposing versions of Goyf/Knight and Goyf comes down a turn earlier (unless you're using a mana dork, then it's the same) and can close out a game without much "trickery".
As you did put it, you'll probably only use Shaman a couple times as a mana-dork in the early game. Knight being an 4/4 (or bigger) is what makes it a threat against some of the other decks. Having to eat a land on turn 2 to play knight doesn't get it out of that "threatened" range (barring a mox or their fetch which would allow you to have a 4/4 or bigger). Basically, you almost NEED to have that larger Knight to survive most matches. this is especially with how rampant Bolt and Pyrokinesis are.
That's one of the interesting things about Canadian Thresh (I'm going using this as a matchup analysis since a lot of players go to it as the best deck and it plays the 'most" fetches), if they don't have to fetch on the first turn, they won't (shouldn't). They (should) hold fetches until they can gain more value from them or have no other choice. That means you may have to keep your Knight a little longer to ensure that it does not bite it to said Bolt.
That's where it comes down to Knight vs Shaman and which you are attempting to better support. By supporting Shaman's consistency, you limit Knight's utility (bog, arbor, Waste, Maze, Karakas, etc). By supporting Knight's utility, you reduce the consistency for shaman (less fetches).
In the example manabase (yeah, let's just call it Standard), Knight can Waste, Bounce Legends, and "Fog" a creature. Those are probably the main uses but, it's also cutting the ability to actually draw (Canopy), fight opposing Knights/graveyards (Bog), grab an Arbor, or tie up mana (Tabernacle, not as much of a stretch as people think).
Tinkering with some crafting theory. Here
In the defense of the less duals more fetches manabase, you really shouldn't be wasting time sacrificing lands with Knight unless you are either trying to Waste-lock an opponent who has stumbled badly on mana, in cases where you need the utility land, in cases where you absolutely must block with him, or in cases where you cannot attack with him. Otherwise, you should be smashing face with them rather than using their ability.
Eating a land or two early may shrink his size when trying to rush him out there on turn 2 (although lets face it, the largest he would be is 4/4 at that point anyway, which doesn't seem consistent with only 7 fetchlands). Luckily, you usually have a ton of other stuff you want to be doing before you rush out a Knight... like casting discard, setting up one of your card advantage creatures (Confidant/SFM), Plowing Delvers, etc. Maybe it's just the way I play, but I usually wait to drop Knight until he's coming down as at least a 5/5. Not only does that help make him Bolt proof, that's also the size where he tends to be larger than everything else.
As a 5/5, I'm usually not concerned about growing him any larger when I can smash face. The windows of opportunity can oftentimes be limited for actually being able to do damage (whether it be due to a pending Terminus, pending protection like Mother of Runes or Sword of Feast and Famine, etc). Some matchups may warrant grabbing a utility land first, and again sometimes I may opt to go for a Wastelock. The manabase I listed had 6 lands available for sacrificing, which seems like more than enough to grab a utility land. Going for a Waste-lock may be a bit more riskier, but that's not always necessary, and Shaman provides mana too. Also, although it has 2 less lands to sacrifice, it has 3 more ways to get those lands into play, so it's not going to be any less consistent with having Forests or Plains in play... it's only limiting the amount of times that Knight can actually be used. Unless Waste-locking, I really don't think he should be used more than a couple of times anyway.
I've always been the type of player to try and limit my toolbox options as much as possible in decks that run toolbox options. Clean and concise. I remember all too well, how so many players would go overboard with Silver Bullets in their Survival lists (back in the day), and how inconsistent they ended up being. Even in various Loam decks with Entomb or Intuition, I always keep my toolbox small. Only the essentials. This may be why I am not concerned with losing out on having a bigger toolbox in my manabase for Knight. The way I look at it is, I can always sideboard the extra utility lands that I'd want to see in specific matchups. Tabernacle vs Goblins is something I always toss in the sideboard, along with Bojuka Bog for various graveyard strategies. Sometimes I toggle between Bog maindeck, especially right now with nearly every deck using the graveyard in some way (even normal decks are using it now, with guys like SCM and Knight). However, with Shaman, I am definitely moving the Bog to the sideboard strictly for graveyard-based matchups like Dredge. Drawing it as a normal land sucks... it's nonbasic, comes into play tapped, and only provides black mana, yuck.
Honestly, I don't even include Maze of Ith most of the time. If it tapped for mana, that would be a different story. As it is, it should not even be considered a land when deckbuilding, and should be replacing a spell slot instead, so that point is moot anyway. In aggressive decks, I rarely care about untapping attackers. The only time I really want to see it in aggressive decks, is to use it to untap Knight to give him Vigiliance (and also to use his sac ability to grow him larger). That still requires that I waste an attack step though, and it takes several attacks before the damage difference from growing him will compensate. If I'm applying a clock already with other creatures, I oftentimes don't even get to compensate for the initial damage loss, either because he eats removal first, or I win the game first. At any rate, I kept it in the list above because I understand how valuable it can be, and since I understand that most people do include it in their lists.
In the lists that would run GSZ, then yea you definitely need to include a Dryad Arbor. In this case, I'd simply add another land to the deck (going up to 23 real lands + 1 Maze).
This is my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to insult or offend anyone with it, but I think Shaman is worth accommodating. You reduce the effectiveness of Knight by a minimal amount to strengthen the mana dork slot dramatically. A couple of Shaman's can do some serious damage to an opponent, while adding another disruptive element. You could argue that Ooze can do the same thing, but Shaman is so much more versatile and it's using otherwise useless slots (by useless I mean strictly mana source slots like Birds of Paradise or Moxes). You could argue that Hierarch provides utility too, but Shaman provides a whole lot more utility than simply adding Exalted, and his ability to make black mana is pretty much a dealbreaker for GBW decks IMO.
I keep reading tournament reports in other threads where they were playing against opponent's with Shaman's, and how badly they underestimated him. There is something to be said about doing 2 damage to the opponent each turn (for each Shaman), without using the combat step. I actually just read one such report in the Goblins thread right before making this post.
EDIT: I also wanted to throw this tidbit out there...
The issue with mana dorks in the past was the fact that they were always dead draws. You ran them to help accelerate your early game beats, and it was worth it for that. They could still carry equipment (although Birds was a bit limited since Jitte needed counters first), they could still chump block, and Llanowar Elves could still chip for some damage from time to time.
Then Hierarch was printed, and it changed things a little bit. Now you had a mana dork that actually provided some utility once you no longer needed the extra mana. Worst case scenario, he could still swing as a 1/2. Growing Goyfs +1/+1 to win the Goyf stand-off was huge at that point in time. Growing Qasali's another +1/+1 to outsize 3/3 Nacatl's, Merfolk's, etc... again, huge. Now with Thalia (because of the first strike), the Exalted is still relevant. Thalia's ability to attack into Mongoose (and other X/3's) can be huge. In lists with Thalia maindeck, I'd still run Hierarch's.
Fast forward to Fall 2012. Now we have Shaman. Now instead of having a mana dork with a somewhat relevant ability (still an awful topdeck), we have an actual threat. Instead of running a creature specifically to ramp and provide Exalted triggers when our creatures attack alone, we have a creature that's actually a good 1 drop creature. Mana ramp or not, his other two abilities are very good abilities, and his 1/2 body is actually really good for a 1 drop utility creature. He doesn't eat it to Forked Bolts, he can chump block Lackey's, etc. Yet at the same time, he's not replacing actual creature drops like Mother of Runes, he's replacing the mana dork spots. To top the whole thing off, he makes mana of any color. This is such a huge difference to the quality of Rock decks (the ones that want the mana ramp, at least). You can now cut Birds of Paradise and Moxes from your Rock lists, and run an actual threat in the mana dork slot, because he's still a mana dork. Topdecking him in the midgame gives you a creature that your opponent would actually want to waste removal on. That right there pretty much says it all.
Anyway, I'm done with my rant. I hope I may have changed a few peoples minds about Shaman, or at least pushed those who were on the fence enough to at least give him a try as a 4-of.
God I love this thread, you guys fucking rock. I have a bigger response later but I wanted to ask hanni where these tourney reports were that had people underestimating Shaman.
Matt- yeah I am an asshole apparently there was a mistake at starcitygames games and he was listed at 10.99 but it has since been fixed.
"eggs... why'd it have to be eggs"
I'm not going to go search for all of them, but here's the one that I read in the Goblins thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...oblins/page200 - it's post #3994 by GoboLord
The relevant part:
Round 6: Markus with BUG_Rouge.deck Report
Markus turned out to be a very friendly and quiet opponent. However I want to point out that I won 2 very close games. In game 1 Deathrite Shaman turned out to be a largely underestimated card. When I was at 10 life he suddenly resolved a second copy of it. Luckily I managed to remove his guys when I was on 1 life.
In game 2 I got hosed by Planeswalker Lilly and was then caught off guard by Jitte (which I was able to race).
I feel like anything I say would be better summed up with this.
Doesn't this negate the Shaman as ramp? Wasn't the Ramp the main argument?
We're both in agreement that the card's good. Our debate is just a matter of how many we're advising people to play.
edit - Frogg, you're punny. (you can all kill me now).
Tinkering with some crafting theory. Here
Since I have yet to post a list, yet I keep discussing things, I guess I should post a list, eh?
The Rock
One of its millions (of variants)
// Lands (22)
4 [ZEN] Marsh Flats
4 [ZEN] Verdant Catacombs
2 [ON] Windswept Heath
2 [R] Bayou
2 [R] Scrubland
1 [R] Savannah
1 [UNH] Forest
1 [UNH] Swamp
1 [LG] Karakas
4 [TE] Wasteland
// Creatures (20)
4 [RTR] Deathrite Shaman
4 [UL] Mother of Runes
4 [RAV] Dark Confidant
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf
4 [CFX] Knight of the Reliquary
// Spells (18)
4 [LRW] Thoughtseize
4 [AT] Hymn to Tourach
4 [IA] Swords to Plowshares
4 [RTR] Abrupt Decay
2 [BOK] Umezawa's Jitte
// Sideboard (15)
SB: 1 [LG] The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
SB: 1 [WWK] Bojuka Bog
SB: 3 [SOM] Nihil Spellbomb
SB: 2 [DKA] Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
SB: 2 [LRW] Gaddock Teeg
SB: 2 [ARB] Zealous Persecution
SB: 2 [WL] Serenity
SB: 2 [TE] Choke
So there you go. No GSZ or toolbox, since I feel pretty covered between the discard and removal. No SFM, but rather 4 Goyf instead for pure unadulterated beats. Still rockin a pair of Jittes, though. Shaman for mana ramp and utility (only 4 mana ramp cause I don't feel as though I need more than that), Mother of Runes for the amazing protection and combat dominance, and Dark Confidant for the crazy good card advantage. Knight rounds off my curve, giving me a nice big finisher. The utility lands are kept to a minimum, as I don't feel as though I really want to be durdling with Knight when I could be attacking instead.
Feel free to bash it to your hearts content, guys ;)
EDIT: Was typing up this post before you posted your response...
I guess, if you're assuming that the entire reason that I'm ramping is to cast a turn 2 Knight.I feel like anything I say would be better summed up with this.
Doesn't this negate the Shaman as ramp? Wasn't the Ramp the main argument?Originally Posted by Hanni
Eating a land or two early may shrink his size when trying to rush him out there on turn 2 (although lets face it, the largest he would be is 4/4 at that point anyway, which doesn't seem consistent with only 7 fetchlands). Luckily, you usually have a ton of other stuff you want to be doing before you rush out a Knight... like casting discard, setting up one of your card advantage creatures (Confidant/SFM), Plowing Delvers, etc. Maybe it's just the way I play, but I usually wait to drop Knight until he's coming down as at least a 5/5. Not only does that help make him Bolt proof, that's also the size where he tends to be larger than everything else.
We're both in agreement that the card's good. Our debate is just a matter of how many we're advising people to play.
edit - Frogg, you're punny. (you can all kill me now).
In actuality, after dropping a Shaman on turn 1, I'd rather be casting my discard spells and/or Mother of Runes first, and then dropping either Confidant and/or Goyf after that. At that point, I'd then want to use my removal to deal with whatever my opponent dropped on the board. After all that, I'll go ahead and drop my Knights. They should be pretty large by then, and ready to close the game out. If for whatever reason the ground ends up getting stalled out and they can't finish the opponent off, I'll either slap a Jitte on somebody, or ping my opponent to death with Shaman's.
In my list above, I only need the mana ramp for the first few turns, unless I get some card advantage going with Confidant. If for whatever reason the Knights still aren't large enough, I suppose I could waste an attack or two to grab some Wasteland's and lay the smackdown on my opponent's manabase while Goyf does the dirty work.
Even though this has been mentioned few times already, I feel like I need to put an emphasis on the fact that Deathrite Shaman doesn't need million fetchlands to run correctly.
Both you and your opponents are playing fetchlands in Legacy (matchups where this isn't a true statement are very very rare), even monocolored decks play them. Each Wasteland is a double food for Shaman, and it's mana ramp ability doesn't need to be activated every single turn of the game. Initial ramp and color fixing is most of the time all that one needs, and that is where Shaman shines. It does it's manadork job very efficiently, while also playing an important role on other fronts in the consecutive turns.
As for the Knight of the Reliquary argument... how many games are there where you use his fetching ability more than 5 times? The answer is not a whole lot.
I'll also add that I think that someone is trying to speculate on Shamans atm, so treat these discussions with caution. Last time I checked (yesterday) on TCGplayer there were hundred of copies available for between $4 and $4.5, and since then someone snapped them up. Same goes for foils.
I'm not sure how much price spiking occurs because of a single thread on The Source, but okay. I think more realistically, that people realize it's going to be a good card for both Modern and Legacy (I'm clueless about Standard), and so they are picking them up before they do price spike.I'll also add that I think that someone is trying to speculate on Shamans atm, so treat these discussions with caution. Last time I checked (yesterday) on TCGplayer there were hundred of copies available for between $4 and $4.5, and since then someone snapped them up. Same goes for foils.
And for the record, I'm clamoring for why I think Shaman is good, because I think Shaman is good. I'm not actually going to go out and a buy 100 copies to try and turn a profit (I know your comment was not directed towards me, but I just felt like getting that off my chest anyway).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
/
Reply With Quote