1. I did, but Christian cut it to include the combo, while I cut something else to include it. At first, I tested Reaper of the Abyss. I like that it has evasion and a lot of power, but you rarely tutor for it. Then, I tried Ruric Thar, the Unbowed, which I used in the GP. On paper, he's a fine choice, but the problem is getting him into play. He singlehandedly won me a game against Jund and UWR each, but that's not enough in my eyes. I'll continue testing him, though, as I feel that the tournament was very hostile to tutoring him up.
2. Thragtusk is a concession to aggressive decks. You can inflict a lot of damage to yourself with this deck and Thragtusk gives you 2 blockers + 5 life. Plus, he's awesome to draw when topdecking.
I've liked Thragtusk a lot so far, even though I wasn't happy in the beginning, but he's really pulling his weight.
Fauna Shaman, on the other hand, is a different horse altogether. She was included as a replacement for the last Skirsdag High Priest. We used to play 3 Priests, but then we included the combo and a lone Priest is kinda bad, so we went with something similiar, that allows us to get more gas out of our draws. I wouldn't say Fauna Shaman is bad, she surely isn't, but she's slow as hell. I guess that's fine, tbh, I don't think I've lost a game where I activated her twice. Don't get me wrong, I'd never tutor for her, but she's a fine draw.
I looked at your list and realized I had almost all the cards for it, so I decided to sleeve up a version and I would like to talk about my substitutions. You should start a thread for the deck.
I'll be honest here...after thinking about it overnight and reading a bit more it appears that RG Tron is very similar to combo mechanically. I was too focused on not defining tron as the combo that I did not really consider the rest of the RG list. I still would not call it combo but it usefull to look at it that way from a strategic standpoint
I want to be clear here...Tron does not a combo deck make. Blue based tron decks want to assemble tron for a win, but play like draw-go or tempo and can do just fine if it never assembles tron. What makes RG Tron more similar to combo is the specificity and redundancy of the strategy, which makes it vulnerable to anti-combo strategies.
If Tron was not combo people would not sideboard cards like Sowing Salt against it.
Do you play Sowing Salt against Kiki Twin? Sowing Salt is a card that is great at getting rid of all of a particular utility land, that's it...it is not an anti-combo card implicitly.
Even by that definition tron would be combo, as assembling tron may not seem like it wins the game on the spot, but fighting through a turn 3 Karn is so tough it could pretty much be considered winning...
No, Tron gives you lots of mana...that's it. That mana does nothing to win you the game by itself, and casting a big permanent with that mana is no more a combo than casting Mog Fanatic by tapping a Mountain.
but again... just because you default to something YOU perceive as "clear and defining" doesn't mean everyone else will, nor that they will interpret it the same way you do. Maybe asking "what do you mean when you say it's combo so that I can understand the point you're trying to make" would go a lot farther than simply assuming you are right and devolve into attacking the person's definition of combo as opposed to his original point.
If we could not establish common definitions then conversations would be exhausting and overlong. If I have to ask every time someone is using MTG terminology then nothing would ever get done, there have to be standards. The point that was being addressed in this case was the assertion that the top 8 was filled with combo, so defining combo is actually the entire point.
but hey... this is the internetz right? Common decency need not apply right?
I am not attacking, I have only provided reasons and support for those reasons.
This works for me and may not work for everyone else, but I fail to see how my opinion is any less right than someone else's. If you feel like tron and affinity are control and aggro respectively by all means label them as such but just know not everyone shares that opinion and look for clarity when communicated about it.
When it comes to clarity of communication I will take the established definition as the most clear, and the fact that it is supported by one of the great innovators of the game makes the definition much more solid. Re reading that section of the book really made it more clear.
Oh, please... You are just one of those guys stuck with the idea that a combo deck needs to finish via combo. Not all combo decks have to. Urzatron is one.
I know I am one of those guys that define combo that way. I also site MTGS wiki when it says that a combo is a deck that "...aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name "combo")." Since assembling Tron does not actually instantly or very quickly win the game by itself, tron is not a combo. Next Level Magic by Patrick Chapin, defines combo as generally referring to "...a type of strategy that involves playing a combination of cards that wins the game." Again, since tron assembled does not win the game in and of itself it is not a combo deck.
It is important to identify the right decks as Combo because as Chapin points out it allows for a person to understand how to oppose this archetype, and lumping in pseudo-combo decks means that you cannot usefully talk about the right strategies.
So apparently the four undefeated players are piloting Tron, Jund, and 2 are piloting Living End!
I know I'll be rooting for Tron/Living End to place.
Ugh, I can't stand facing Living End or R/G Tron, and I can't imagine they are all that much more entertaining to watch as a spectator. They are so redundant, which makes them good decks to play, but means that so many games play out the same. Jund really does nothing for me, but I don't hate it as much as the others.
I looked at your list and realized I had almost all the cards for it, so I decided to sleeve up a version and I would like to talk about my substitutions. You should start a thread for the deck.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I want to be clear here...Tron does not a combo deck make. Blue based tron decks want to assemble tron for a win, but play like draw-go or tempo and can do just fine if it never assembles tron. What makes RG Tron more similar to combo is the specificity and redundancy of the strategy, which makes it vulnerable to anti-combo strategies.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
If we could not establish common definitions then conversations would be exhausting and overlong. If I have to ask every time someone is using MTG terminology then nothing would ever get done, there have to be standards. The point that was being addressed in this case was the assertion that the top 8 was filled with combo, so defining combo is actually the entire point.
I am not attacking, I have only provided reasons and support for those reasons.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
It is important to identify the right decks as Combo because as Chapin points out it allows for a person to understand how to oppose this archetype, and lumping in pseudo-combo decks means that you cannot usefully talk about the right strategies.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!