I'm toying with similar ideas but I think the sideboard doesn't justify running forests and crossroads. I'm also not sold on Warden of Geometries. Vigilance on a dork is nice but the body is tiny for the mana cost, so it won't generally get to attack and make use of the vigilance.
I also think 4 Titan's Presence is too many in the mainboard, I'd sooner sideboard 2 and mainboard 2, then add a couple more Oblivion Sowers.
Shrine of Forgotten Gods isn't usually online so you may as well replace that, and if you pull the green from the sideboard you can also do so with the forests and crossroads, with more Wastes. You can then replace the Wardens with Walker of the Wastes(some number between 2 and 4 depending on what feels most reasonable on curve).
If you really want something like Warden of Geometries, I'd suggest looking into Kozilek's Channeler instead, since that is only 1 mana more for 2/2 more in stats and an extra mana from the ability.
For sideboard I'd probably throw in 1-2 Ulamog for slower matchups. Maybe a couple of copies of Ruin Processor for lifegain in the mid-late game depending on how consistently you think you can resolve it without dying first.
Might even be tempted to sideboard a couple copies of Orbs of Warding as a precaution against token decks but I think that may be a bit too ambitious.
I feel like Fathom Feeder is a trap, honestly, in the U/B lists. The main benefit of the land base and the focus on Eldrazi is the free value from processing and Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi Temple as a ramping engine, similar to Tron's gameplan. Fathom Feeder doesn't benefit from any of the Ramp effects the deck runs, isn't a meaningful threat, isn't hard to remove, and isn't competitive as a processor enabler compared to the myriad other options in Modern. Especially considering that one of the major U/B perks is running Ashiok, which is a far better engine for Processing. I have been experimenting with a variety of U/B lists and never have found Fathom Feeder to be useful aside from occasionally in the Infect matchup, in the event of which any colorless removal spell or chump blocker is effectively the same thing(colorless being relevant because of Apostle's Blessing).
The main benefits of splashing blue are Delay and Ashiok, I think, with Nullifier being only especially good with Eye out turning it into a counterspell that leaves a body(so only as a 2-3 of).
Blue splash has some strong options, but I think they should be leveraged as protection for the core threat, instead of as an attempt to play a longer control game like the U/B lists I've seen posted seem to be trying for.
Tested out a really rough budget variant of this deck(no dual lands, duress instead of inquisition) and although it did pretty poorly at the tournament I was at the results looked promising once I have the money to invest into improving it.
One card I threw in that was surprisingly effective ended up being Reality Shift. Particularly in matchups against decks with high impact creatures at a low density like Tron and Infect(since they have a significantly lower chance of manifesting anything threatening). I don't think it was broad enough of an answer to be worth running mainboard but it might be a good sideboard option to pull out in place of Go for the Throat against Tron and Infect as it fully answers Wurmcoil Engine and although it provides infect with a replacement threat, it won't be one with infect and so it'll be of little use to them.
Fathom Feeder on the other hand felt generally like a lackluster option. Its lack of evasion meant that it couldn't actually make use of its Ingest ability to fuel processors, and its Draw effect is too mana inefficient to be usable most of the time. Since the deck mainly tries to generate card advantage and tempo off of the processors, it's important to be able to get enough exiled cards early to make use of them. I plan on trying the deck again on Friday and replacing them with Mist Intruders to see if they feel more consistent.
The core of the deck(Delay, Nullifier, Strangler, Ashiok) felt incredibly strong however, as long as we can find some way to build around those cards sufficiently.
I think the 10 dollar price tag isn't necessarily a bad thing provided the average pack value ends up panning out appropriately. The issue I always had with MM1 was that the value of the cards you pulled fluctuated wildly, having a couple of chase mythics(primarily Tarmogoyf) and the rest of the set being bulk junk. If the power density of the set is high enough I would be willing to pay 10 bucks a pack, but I'm certainly not preordering a single box until I know 100% of what's in the set, so I can be sure I'll get my money's worth most of the time.
I think to even answer whether we are traveling towards a more "moral" society requires a few different questions be answered, to say nothing of what the cause of movement toward/away from said society could be.
First, a clear statement for "moral" needs to be defined. In a society where, to use a previous example, the punishment for theft is execution, and as a result theft is much less frequent, is that more moral than a society where the punishment for theft is a fine or imprisonment but theft is significantly more widespread? Is the fact a lot of "immoral" people are being killed and the "immoral" act of theft is decreasing a sufficient justification for the "immoral" act of killing people, regardless of what type of people they may be? This is a highly subjective thing and not easy to answer, and for most people is on a very individually-biased sliding scale.
Secondly, on what information are we measuring the rate of immoral events occurring? If past law enforcement was less competent then that would result in fewer reported, observed, and/or solved crimes. This would result in the appearance of a lower crime rate, when in fact the crime rate was much greater than it appears from recorded information dating to that time period.
Third, what are we defining as "society"? Are we measuring this on the basis of an entire world, or merely one culture? One subset of a culture? The current laws of an existing culture? The larger scale you end up going it becomes even more difficult to accurately measure things, even today.
I think that voluntary euthanasia is perfectly fine, however I feel that it should be gated behind something to establish that the individual has a consistent desire for it rather than an impulsive desire. For example, an appointment should be set after the request for euthanasia, and the individual must still desire the euthanasia specifically at the time of the appointment(not merely beforehand nor afterward, as a lapse in their desire to end their life indicates their desire is not consistent).
I'm curious about his decision not to run Frontier Siege as it provides the potential for explosive starts like T1 Mystic, T2 Mastery, T3 Frontier->Caryatid, T4 manifest x2. I'm assuming he just wanted to be running a minimum of cards that he doesn't want face-down?
Having tested this archetype at last week's FNM there are a couple thoughts.
Caveats: My local meta is chiefly midrange. I have yet to see anyone playing control and only a small number of people playing aggro. I'd say 50-60% of the meta is Abzan and probably around 20-30% is Jeskai with the remainder some mix of homebrew or combo.
I don't actually run thoughtsieze in my mainboard. There's a couple reasons for this, one is that as my mana base runs no ETB tapped lands but instead 4 Caves of Koilos and 4 Confluence plus a playset of Ulcerate I suffer a lot of self inflicted damage. I run a playset of Despise instead. At the moment it's not unusual for me to take 8-10 self inflicted damage in any given round depending on how greedy I'm playing and what I'm boarding in/out. The extra 2 life loss per thoughtsieze I have not found to convert into results, as I usually find myself taking creatures anyways over removal(rhinos, coursers and caryatids chiefly). I'd sooner run thoughtsieze sideboard and board them in in place of Ulcerate against control matchups on top of Despise, since Despise still hits most control wincons and Ulcerate is a dead card in that matchup.
Woe Reaper ends up being a strong card in a lot of matchups either due to lifegain to offset the manabase self inflicted damage, or as graveyard hate against recursion or delve. For all intents and purposes I generally find it to turn into "When you cast a creature spell, gain 1 life", which adds up rapidly in a deck with this aggressive of a curve. And you can always scrap your own non-bloodsoaked champion creatures for extra life if your opponent has no graveyard left to eat. This is a huge deal in a situation where you're racing another aggressive deck. I would probably be less inclined to run this card if I was running delve cards like Murderous Cut.
Valorous Stance I'm still borderline on. On the one hand it's strong in matchups against Abzan as it hits Rhino and Courser. On the other hand against pretty much every other matchup I question running it over Boon of Erebos since Stance is a modal card and Boon gives you both protection and removal, plus adds 2 damage to an unblocked creature potentially, costs 1 less mana and neither protect you against most removal spells you really worry about(BB and Drown). That said I'd probably sooner swap Ulcerate out for Boon than Valorous Stance just because of the same reason I don't mainboard Thoughtsieze: too much life loss. The main issue is if I'm already running Boon mainboard is it worth running Valorous Stance mainboard over something else, and instead sideboarding Stance as a card to board in vs Abzan. I'd almost sooner ditch it in favor of Gods Willing or Feat of Resistance.
Lastly I feel like Obelisk of Urd is being overlooked as a 1-2 of. I'm running 2 mainboard and almost every game where I resolve it I win just by virtue of my creatures becoming no longer efficiently killable. It puts everything out of Drown range and all lords out of Bile Blight range, it allows all creatures in the deck to at least trade with every relevant creature in the format sans Rhino. It can be convoked out if you have a threat-dense hand and played normally if you have a land-dense hand. It gives you a use for creatures on an otherwise stalled board. Most decks don't run artifact hate, just Erase, so it is rarely in danger of being removed. I think it warrants some further exploration as an include.
For the sake of *cough* trying to resolve the argument I inadvertently caused, I'll clarify my beliefs. I generally use the broad term "agnostic" simply because it differentiates from the common definition of Atheism: The belief that god conclusively does not exist.
When I say I am Agnostic I refer to that I acknowledge I have no way of knowing or proving whether a god(Christian or otherwise) does or does not exist, and due to that, cannot justify following any particular religion's ethical or moral code on anything but their own merits. It is not so much that I believe God does or does not exist, as I acknowledge I don't know either way and therefore using God's existence(or nonexistence) to justify an action is invalid. Therefore I make every effort not to include that as a factor in my ethical or moral code.
I suppose to use an analogy one could compare it to someone who believes whether the universe is or is not infinite in size. It could be either, we lack a way to prove it either way, and for all practical purposes it has no demonstrable effect on my life, therefore I don't really think about it except in a purely idle sense.
I don't generally keep tabs on what more specific terms like "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" mean, I'm simply labeling how I differ from the "conventional" Atheist. I guess upon doing a little looking into the subject one would classify me as an Apathetic Agnostic.
I hope that clears my comment up a bit, I didn't mean to start an argument.
Before explaining my views I want to clarify that I am an agnostic, not an atheist, and as such I am indifferent to the existence of any particular god or pantheon, and my largest issue is with the Christian church and the effect it has on many individuals, rather than Christianity itself on a conceptual level.
My opinion on the Christian religion is that it is a philosophical and moral education system constructed to teach the masses right from wrong. Given the context in which it was invented, I do not disagree with its method. I kind of equate it with The Analects in purpose, but given the nature of the society in which it evolved it took a religious tone rather than a scholarly one.
When taken as a philosophical or moral education system, I support it to an extent, in the respect of providing a grounds on which to discuss moral and philosophical dilemmas. Interpreting religious texts is a heavy aspect of morality and philosophy prior to the scientific age in which we currently live.
Due to the global-spanning nature of the organization and the manner in which it is generally taught(sermons), modern day christianity(and organizaed christianity in general) tends to discourage debate, free-thinking and reinterpretation. It very much tends to fall under the religious leader saying "this is how X is interpreted, if you disagree you're wrong". This is not a modern development but lasts at least as far back as the split between Catholicism and Protestantism, if not further considering the religious sect splits common to the middle east).
By teaching morality and philosophy in this format, it inherently teaches individuals to themselves be unwilling to brook open debate and reinterpretation of things.
Essentially I don't think that religion(christian or otherwise) is an inherently bad teaching tool for the purpose of morals and ethics. But I strongly object to the way in which it is used by religious groups and organizations to teach and the bad mindsets it fosters in people as a result.
I agree that prior to DTK we just don't have enough fixing for tricolor aggro to be consistent enough.
Also re: the previous post about warrior tribal vs aggro that just has lots of warriors in it, the main thing is that if you're going B/W aggro, you probably are fielding a lot of warriors. If you are going B/W aggro, and you are fielding a lot of warriors, you are probably running 4 Chief of the Edge because it's a 3/2 for 2 with a nontrivial upside. If you are already running 4 of those and a lot of warriors you may as well be tribal warriors because it's doubtful it changes more than 4-8 cards in your deck anyways to do so at that point.
I've been fiddling with my own ideas right now using early KTK MBA lists as a basis but there are a few things I find myself contemplating a lot.
A big question I keep running into is how many one-drops to run? At this point Black Aggro probably has the largest spread of strong aggro 1 drop cards in the same standard rotation in history. We have Tormented Hero(2 power), Mardu Shadowspear(1/1 with 1 damage reach), Bloodsoaked Champion(2 power with recursion), Thoughtseize(to try and get rid of early boardwipes/coursers/Caryatids), and if we step outside of Warriors we also have Gnarled Scarhide, another 2 power option. So we basically have a starting pool of 24 strong 1 drops to trim.
That makes Battle Brawler a lot less attractive of a pick most of the time because he's most valuable when played alongside or one turn prior to a white permanent, and at least half of our nonland cards are probably going to be mono-black.
Return to the Ranks sounds a lot more attractive though, especially considering with the number of 1 drops available any you play on the turn you cast RttR are basically free(since you can tap them for the convoke cost to "refund" the mana expenditure).
I've seen some lists messing with Seeker of the Way also, but I don't think it's a good card for the strategy as there likely won't be enough noncreature spells in use to make it more than a bear most of the time and there are better bears available now. Brutal Hordechief looks like a fun 2-of as a finisher however and Strike Leader gives mana-efficient board presence if not killed immediately.
So the other question I guess is how heavy do we splash W? Chief of the Edge is guaranteed 4 slots, 2 slots for Return to the Ranks probably and then probably 3-4 of Valorous Stance? Are there any other White spells we really need honestly?
His morph deck is very similar to the draft I've been toying with on my own.
I don't agree with the usage of Ghostfire Blade, Kheru Spellsnatcher or Hornet Queen though, I think it'd be better served by running some blue control or green combat tricks to provide some versatility. Personally I think swapping them out for copies of Stubborn Denial and Savage Punch is worthwhile. Triggering Ferocity is basically 100% with Trail of Mystery out(of the creatures in his shell, only the Savants and Elvish Mystics won't trigger Ferocity off Trail, the Savants because they have 0 power and the Mystics because they don't have morph anyways).
Ghostfire blade does nothing without a creature out, relies on a morph creature to be remotely efficient, and doesn't really play off of morph's emphasis on combat tricks and uncertain combat math.
Savage Punch gives an actual removal tool that plays off of the deck's combo centric nature well and also plays to its strength of being creature-centric. It also gives you a combat trick that functions in a variety of ways(for example, taking a medium sized creature and using it to kill one of your opponent's smaller blockers and also buff it to a size that allows it to trade with the assigned blocker).
Denial gives you resiliency and protection from board wipes but also gives you a good tool for slowing down early game aggression from RDW and Mardu aggro shells, while being a tempo efficient counterspell that maintains its value into the late game board states.
Secret Plans and Trail of Mystery create a lot of potential CA, deck thinning, mana fixing, and blowout potential with the right morph creatures to support. Personally I feel that at this point those two cards guarantee "if there are enough playable morph creatures in UG, Morph will be a deck". The question is if there are enough playable morph creatures in UG right now.
This is the rough outline I think pretty much has to be started with currently:
Trail and Secret Plans are just straight up 4-ofs, Rattleclaw gives you both normal ramp and explosive fast bombs potentially, mystic gives you a T1 dork, Charger gives you a T2 and T3 threat with blowout potential using Trail's second effect(T3 dropping a morph flipped into a 5/3 trample will shut your opponent up and force them to play conservatively whether used defensively or offensively). Sagu Mauler is just straight up a strong hard to answer threat. The ideal play is T1 Mystic, T2 enchantment, T3 Morph either Rattleclaw into T4 Mauler or Temur Charger into flip for CA(either by favorable trade or card draw).
The questions are what other value cards do we put in here, what removal suite do we run, and do we splash a third color(and if so, which?). Personally I favor running just pure UG for consistency, there don't feel like there are enough value morph creatures in other colors that fit the curve, though black has a couple nice ones for a faster strategy. Here's what I'm toying with:
I'm contemplating running more removal and maybe a copy of Kruphix to help with excess card draw or mana. Might pull something out to run the Icefeather Aven too since it provides some early control options through bounce and has built in evasion.
I feel like of all the removal spells available to this deck, Savage Punch is 100% the best option without splashing a third color. For one thing, a large amount of morph creatures are, when morphed, big. Secondarily, with Trail of Mystery available, literally the only creatures in the deck not capable of triggering Ferocity are Prophet of Kruphix and Elvish Mystic. Every single other creature has 4+ power, Morph and 2+ power, or both.
Looking for possible directions to improve the basic concept, or other peoples' ideas on the general concept. What do you guys think?
So, thoughts on slivers currently in terms of weaknesses as an archetype.
-Weak to surgical removal.
-trade poorly because slivers scale exponentially.
-3 colors minimum are needed and fixing depends on manaweft.
Because of this G is necessary for manaweft, evasion is necessary to avoid trades(either U or R for galerider and/or belligerent), and U feels necessary for diffusion. I feel that RUG is the best color combination due to diffusion, redundant evasion and access to manaweft for fixing and chord as both an instant speed tutor(also functional as a costly combat trick, especially using convoke) and pseudo-fixing. I'll post a decklist idea later after I get off work. I also feel that obelisk is superior to both battle sliver and megantic sliver due to convoke, even though it doesnt provide a body.
I also think 4 Titan's Presence is too many in the mainboard, I'd sooner sideboard 2 and mainboard 2, then add a couple more Oblivion Sowers.
Shrine of Forgotten Gods isn't usually online so you may as well replace that, and if you pull the green from the sideboard you can also do so with the forests and crossroads, with more Wastes. You can then replace the Wardens with Walker of the Wastes(some number between 2 and 4 depending on what feels most reasonable on curve).
If you really want something like Warden of Geometries, I'd suggest looking into Kozilek's Channeler instead, since that is only 1 mana more for 2/2 more in stats and an extra mana from the ability.
For sideboard I'd probably throw in 1-2 Ulamog for slower matchups. Maybe a couple of copies of Ruin Processor for lifegain in the mid-late game depending on how consistently you think you can resolve it without dying first.
Might even be tempted to sideboard a couple copies of Orbs of Warding as a precaution against token decks but I think that may be a bit too ambitious.
The main benefits of splashing blue are Delay and Ashiok, I think, with Nullifier being only especially good with Eye out turning it into a counterspell that leaves a body(so only as a 2-3 of).
Blue splash has some strong options, but I think they should be leveraged as protection for the core threat, instead of as an attempt to play a longer control game like the U/B lists I've seen posted seem to be trying for.
One card I threw in that was surprisingly effective ended up being Reality Shift. Particularly in matchups against decks with high impact creatures at a low density like Tron and Infect(since they have a significantly lower chance of manifesting anything threatening). I don't think it was broad enough of an answer to be worth running mainboard but it might be a good sideboard option to pull out in place of Go for the Throat against Tron and Infect as it fully answers Wurmcoil Engine and although it provides infect with a replacement threat, it won't be one with infect and so it'll be of little use to them.
Fathom Feeder on the other hand felt generally like a lackluster option. Its lack of evasion meant that it couldn't actually make use of its Ingest ability to fuel processors, and its Draw effect is too mana inefficient to be usable most of the time. Since the deck mainly tries to generate card advantage and tempo off of the processors, it's important to be able to get enough exiled cards early to make use of them. I plan on trying the deck again on Friday and replacing them with Mist Intruders to see if they feel more consistent.
The core of the deck(Delay, Nullifier, Strangler, Ashiok) felt incredibly strong however, as long as we can find some way to build around those cards sufficiently.
First, a clear statement for "moral" needs to be defined. In a society where, to use a previous example, the punishment for theft is execution, and as a result theft is much less frequent, is that more moral than a society where the punishment for theft is a fine or imprisonment but theft is significantly more widespread? Is the fact a lot of "immoral" people are being killed and the "immoral" act of theft is decreasing a sufficient justification for the "immoral" act of killing people, regardless of what type of people they may be? This is a highly subjective thing and not easy to answer, and for most people is on a very individually-biased sliding scale.
Secondly, on what information are we measuring the rate of immoral events occurring? If past law enforcement was less competent then that would result in fewer reported, observed, and/or solved crimes. This would result in the appearance of a lower crime rate, when in fact the crime rate was much greater than it appears from recorded information dating to that time period.
Third, what are we defining as "society"? Are we measuring this on the basis of an entire world, or merely one culture? One subset of a culture? The current laws of an existing culture? The larger scale you end up going it becomes even more difficult to accurately measure things, even today.
Caveats: My local meta is chiefly midrange. I have yet to see anyone playing control and only a small number of people playing aggro. I'd say 50-60% of the meta is Abzan and probably around 20-30% is Jeskai with the remainder some mix of homebrew or combo.
I don't actually run thoughtsieze in my mainboard. There's a couple reasons for this, one is that as my mana base runs no ETB tapped lands but instead 4 Caves of Koilos and 4 Confluence plus a playset of Ulcerate I suffer a lot of self inflicted damage. I run a playset of Despise instead. At the moment it's not unusual for me to take 8-10 self inflicted damage in any given round depending on how greedy I'm playing and what I'm boarding in/out. The extra 2 life loss per thoughtsieze I have not found to convert into results, as I usually find myself taking creatures anyways over removal(rhinos, coursers and caryatids chiefly). I'd sooner run thoughtsieze sideboard and board them in in place of Ulcerate against control matchups on top of Despise, since Despise still hits most control wincons and Ulcerate is a dead card in that matchup.
Woe Reaper ends up being a strong card in a lot of matchups either due to lifegain to offset the manabase self inflicted damage, or as graveyard hate against recursion or delve. For all intents and purposes I generally find it to turn into "When you cast a creature spell, gain 1 life", which adds up rapidly in a deck with this aggressive of a curve. And you can always scrap your own non-bloodsoaked champion creatures for extra life if your opponent has no graveyard left to eat. This is a huge deal in a situation where you're racing another aggressive deck. I would probably be less inclined to run this card if I was running delve cards like Murderous Cut.
Valorous Stance I'm still borderline on. On the one hand it's strong in matchups against Abzan as it hits Rhino and Courser. On the other hand against pretty much every other matchup I question running it over Boon of Erebos since Stance is a modal card and Boon gives you both protection and removal, plus adds 2 damage to an unblocked creature potentially, costs 1 less mana and neither protect you against most removal spells you really worry about(BB and Drown). That said I'd probably sooner swap Ulcerate out for Boon than Valorous Stance just because of the same reason I don't mainboard Thoughtsieze: too much life loss. The main issue is if I'm already running Boon mainboard is it worth running Valorous Stance mainboard over something else, and instead sideboarding Stance as a card to board in vs Abzan. I'd almost sooner ditch it in favor of Gods Willing or Feat of Resistance.
Lastly I feel like Obelisk of Urd is being overlooked as a 1-2 of. I'm running 2 mainboard and almost every game where I resolve it I win just by virtue of my creatures becoming no longer efficiently killable. It puts everything out of Drown range and all lords out of Bile Blight range, it allows all creatures in the deck to at least trade with every relevant creature in the format sans Rhino. It can be convoked out if you have a threat-dense hand and played normally if you have a land-dense hand. It gives you a use for creatures on an otherwise stalled board. Most decks don't run artifact hate, just Erase, so it is rarely in danger of being removed. I think it warrants some further exploration as an include.
When I say I am Agnostic I refer to that I acknowledge I have no way of knowing or proving whether a god(Christian or otherwise) does or does not exist, and due to that, cannot justify following any particular religion's ethical or moral code on anything but their own merits. It is not so much that I believe God does or does not exist, as I acknowledge I don't know either way and therefore using God's existence(or nonexistence) to justify an action is invalid. Therefore I make every effort not to include that as a factor in my ethical or moral code.
I suppose to use an analogy one could compare it to someone who believes whether the universe is or is not infinite in size. It could be either, we lack a way to prove it either way, and for all practical purposes it has no demonstrable effect on my life, therefore I don't really think about it except in a purely idle sense.
I don't generally keep tabs on what more specific terms like "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" mean, I'm simply labeling how I differ from the "conventional" Atheist. I guess upon doing a little looking into the subject one would classify me as an Apathetic Agnostic.
I hope that clears my comment up a bit, I didn't mean to start an argument.
My opinion on the Christian religion is that it is a philosophical and moral education system constructed to teach the masses right from wrong. Given the context in which it was invented, I do not disagree with its method. I kind of equate it with The Analects in purpose, but given the nature of the society in which it evolved it took a religious tone rather than a scholarly one.
When taken as a philosophical or moral education system, I support it to an extent, in the respect of providing a grounds on which to discuss moral and philosophical dilemmas. Interpreting religious texts is a heavy aspect of morality and philosophy prior to the scientific age in which we currently live.
Due to the global-spanning nature of the organization and the manner in which it is generally taught(sermons), modern day christianity(and organizaed christianity in general) tends to discourage debate, free-thinking and reinterpretation. It very much tends to fall under the religious leader saying "this is how X is interpreted, if you disagree you're wrong". This is not a modern development but lasts at least as far back as the split between Catholicism and Protestantism, if not further considering the religious sect splits common to the middle east).
By teaching morality and philosophy in this format, it inherently teaches individuals to themselves be unwilling to brook open debate and reinterpretation of things.
Essentially I don't think that religion(christian or otherwise) is an inherently bad teaching tool for the purpose of morals and ethics. But I strongly object to the way in which it is used by religious groups and organizations to teach and the bad mindsets it fosters in people as a result.
Also re: the previous post about warrior tribal vs aggro that just has lots of warriors in it, the main thing is that if you're going B/W aggro, you probably are fielding a lot of warriors. If you are going B/W aggro, and you are fielding a lot of warriors, you are probably running 4 Chief of the Edge because it's a 3/2 for 2 with a nontrivial upside. If you are already running 4 of those and a lot of warriors you may as well be tribal warriors because it's doubtful it changes more than 4-8 cards in your deck anyways to do so at that point.
I've been fiddling with my own ideas right now using early KTK MBA lists as a basis but there are a few things I find myself contemplating a lot.
A big question I keep running into is how many one-drops to run? At this point Black Aggro probably has the largest spread of strong aggro 1 drop cards in the same standard rotation in history. We have Tormented Hero(2 power), Mardu Shadowspear(1/1 with 1 damage reach), Bloodsoaked Champion(2 power with recursion), Thoughtseize(to try and get rid of early boardwipes/coursers/Caryatids), and if we step outside of Warriors we also have Gnarled Scarhide, another 2 power option. So we basically have a starting pool of 24 strong 1 drops to trim.
That makes Battle Brawler a lot less attractive of a pick most of the time because he's most valuable when played alongside or one turn prior to a white permanent, and at least half of our nonland cards are probably going to be mono-black.
Return to the Ranks sounds a lot more attractive though, especially considering with the number of 1 drops available any you play on the turn you cast RttR are basically free(since you can tap them for the convoke cost to "refund" the mana expenditure).
I've seen some lists messing with Seeker of the Way also, but I don't think it's a good card for the strategy as there likely won't be enough noncreature spells in use to make it more than a bear most of the time and there are better bears available now. Brutal Hordechief looks like a fun 2-of as a finisher however and Strike Leader gives mana-efficient board presence if not killed immediately.
So the other question I guess is how heavy do we splash W? Chief of the Edge is guaranteed 4 slots, 2 slots for Return to the Ranks probably and then probably 3-4 of Valorous Stance? Are there any other White spells we really need honestly?
I don't agree with the usage of Ghostfire Blade, Kheru Spellsnatcher or Hornet Queen though, I think it'd be better served by running some blue control or green combat tricks to provide some versatility. Personally I think swapping them out for copies of Stubborn Denial and Savage Punch is worthwhile. Triggering Ferocity is basically 100% with Trail of Mystery out(of the creatures in his shell, only the Savants and Elvish Mystics won't trigger Ferocity off Trail, the Savants because they have 0 power and the Mystics because they don't have morph anyways).
Ghostfire blade does nothing without a creature out, relies on a morph creature to be remotely efficient, and doesn't really play off of morph's emphasis on combat tricks and uncertain combat math.
Savage Punch gives an actual removal tool that plays off of the deck's combo centric nature well and also plays to its strength of being creature-centric. It also gives you a combat trick that functions in a variety of ways(for example, taking a medium sized creature and using it to kill one of your opponent's smaller blockers and also buff it to a size that allows it to trade with the assigned blocker).
Denial gives you resiliency and protection from board wipes but also gives you a good tool for slowing down early game aggression from RDW and Mardu aggro shells, while being a tempo efficient counterspell that maintains its value into the late game board states.
Secret Plans and Trail of Mystery create a lot of potential CA, deck thinning, mana fixing, and blowout potential with the right morph creatures to support. Personally I feel that at this point those two cards guarantee "if there are enough playable morph creatures in UG, Morph will be a deck". The question is if there are enough playable morph creatures in UG right now.
This is the rough outline I think pretty much has to be started with currently:
4 Trail of Mystery
4 Secret Plans
4 Elvish Mystic
4 Rattleclaw Mystic
4 Temur Charger
4 Sagu Mauler
Trail and Secret Plans are just straight up 4-ofs, Rattleclaw gives you both normal ramp and explosive fast bombs potentially, mystic gives you a T1 dork, Charger gives you a T2 and T3 threat with blowout potential using Trail's second effect(T3 dropping a morph flipped into a 5/3 trample will shut your opponent up and force them to play conservatively whether used defensively or offensively). Sagu Mauler is just straight up a strong hard to answer threat. The ideal play is T1 Mystic, T2 enchantment, T3 Morph either Rattleclaw into T4 Mauler or Temur Charger into flip for CA(either by favorable trade or card draw).
The questions are what other value cards do we put in here, what removal suite do we run, and do we splash a third color(and if so, which?). Personally I favor running just pure UG for consistency, there don't feel like there are enough value morph creatures in other colors that fit the curve, though black has a couple nice ones for a faster strategy. Here's what I'm toying with:
4 Trail of Mystery
4 Secret Plans
Creatures
4 Elvish Mystic
4 Rattleclaw Mystic
4 Temur Charger
2 Polukranos, World Eater
1 Thassa, God of the Sea
1 Nylea, God of the Hunt
2 Prophet of Kruphix
2 Hooded Hydra
4 Sagu Mauler
4 Savage Punch
Lands
24 Lands
I'm contemplating running more removal and maybe a copy of Kruphix to help with excess card draw or mana. Might pull something out to run the Icefeather Aven too since it provides some early control options through bounce and has built in evasion.
I feel like of all the removal spells available to this deck, Savage Punch is 100% the best option without splashing a third color. For one thing, a large amount of morph creatures are, when morphed, big. Secondarily, with Trail of Mystery available, literally the only creatures in the deck not capable of triggering Ferocity are Prophet of Kruphix and Elvish Mystic. Every single other creature has 4+ power, Morph and 2+ power, or both.
Looking for possible directions to improve the basic concept, or other peoples' ideas on the general concept. What do you guys think?
-Weak to surgical removal.
-trade poorly because slivers scale exponentially.
-3 colors minimum are needed and fixing depends on manaweft.
Because of this G is necessary for manaweft, evasion is necessary to avoid trades(either U or R for galerider and/or belligerent), and U feels necessary for diffusion. I feel that RUG is the best color combination due to diffusion, redundant evasion and access to manaweft for fixing and chord as both an instant speed tutor(also functional as a costly combat trick, especially using convoke) and pseudo-fixing. I'll post a decklist idea later after I get off work. I also feel that obelisk is superior to both battle sliver and megantic sliver due to convoke, even though it doesnt provide a body.