Heh, quest for the gem blades seems really funny. Cast that 1/1 flying infest on turn two, turn three drop that and attack. One poison counter and them staring down a 5/5 flying infest next turn. I like the idea. I also like that it targets so possible interactions with the lash later in the game. Guess it could be replaced with your normal pump spell, but seems more dangerous since the 4 +1/+1 counters just sit there
You might want to read what Quest AND Livewire Lash do.
Don't know if it was by accident, but you've definitely mixed up the comparisons. B/G would be sligh, and Mono G would be the slower version. You run Putrefax, Carrion Call - even Tangle Angler! - with no ramp. That's well into midrange already. There's no way a deck with CC and TA can be considered fast by the standards that SOM are going to set.
My B/G currently runs only 1- and 2-cc spells apart from 3 Hand of the Praetors. The rest is pump spells and even BoP's for extra speed. Mono G as you present it is definitely the slower of the decks.
So, I'm curious what people are planning to build right out of the gate for post-SOM standard tournament play. If there are any obvious options I've neglected to mention in the poll, specify so below; I basically sampled the NCD forum and the Competitive Standard forum for popular choices. Sorry if I missed something really obvious!
In my defense he's the one who started insults, I pointed out why his thinking was wrong and he threw a tantrum.
As someone who just joined the thread and doesn't care one whit who started it, I can say that you were being extremely condescending way before that. I can't fathom why you'd want to play innocent when anyone can just click a link go back and rewatch your attitude in all its glory.
That said, what people are trying to explain to you is that a card which gives your opponent the choice of effects makes it worse than the card that just flat out wins on the first effect. This card reads "make your creature unblockable up until the point when it would kill your opponent, at which point it doesn't kill your opponent after all, but instead nets you a neat advantage that'll *help* you go the rest of the distance - as opposed to just giving you the victory".
THAT said, I agree that this is a really good card because it's so aggressively costed that until the point when the opponent will choose to block, the small mana investment will be worthwhile. I'm pretty dedicated to a G/B infect deck at this moment, and Infiltration Lens will be at its full potential here, because I play enough Vines, Groundswell and GG to make any opponent wary of letting any creatures through, even just a few poison counters into the game. The risk of a pump spell on my creature means that the opponent will likely give me the two cards earlier than they really should, just to be on the safe side. Not sure how much it'll do for a more standard aggro deck that's more open about its threats.
I don't agree, not for an aggro deck that wants to tap out every turn to maximise threats, I'd rather be dropping strong infect creatures a turn earlier than time walking myself just so I can keep attacking with my 1/1.
That's not how I would use it in any case. I definitely want to try Vector Asp out, not for playing it on turn 1 and spending B to blindly attack with it the following turn instead of playing a 2-drop (that would suck), but for playing it turn 1 and examining the situation. If I have a 2-drop infector in hand as well, I'll obviously play that on turn 2 and keep the Vector Asp at home. That still gives me an additional attacker to drop pump spells on on turn 3 if they have a blocker out or simply if they Bolt my 2-drop.
However, if I don't have a 2-drop in hand, I can attack with Vector asp on turn 2, quite possibly with a Groundswell on it for 5 poison counters on turn 2. In fact, Vector Asp allows me to sometimes goldfish on turn 3 with Groundswells and Vines. Not the most likely scenario, but nice.
So, the way I see it, Vector Asp should at least be tested, not for early attacking, but for spending turn 1 on getting another attacker out that they'll have to deal with by turn 3-5. *Any* infector getting through in those turns can mean game, and a 1cc creature gives us more options on turn 1 and 3.
Another idea, how about Infiltration Lens? Blockers are one of the main things that'll slow us down. Two cards per block sounds like a pretty damn good deal. Like with Vector Asp, it's another viable 1-drop that requires extra mana investment later, but also like Vector Asp, we don't have to spend that extra mana on it as early as possible, only whenever it suits us, which could be when we have our attacking force established.
Livewire Lash is interesting since infectors will deal damage as poison through it, but it's only of use if they plan to shoot our creatures down a lot. Even so, if they really run a lot of removal, they can shoot in response to the equip, so not sure about this.
All the other new infectors seem too expensive to run. Corpse Cur does give off card advantage in a nice way, but if I have to play 4cc stuff other than Hand of the Praetors in this deck, I'd probably prefer Garruk or something else.
Tel-Jilad fallen *could* be a sideboard card if the Tempered Steel decks become popular... and even so, maybe not.
What do you guys think of the spoiled Trigon of Rage in this deck? You'll be unlikely to miss the 2-drop or 3-drop creature but it curves well at the 4 spot and can be used for 3 turns. Can also replace the drop if you don't curve out turn 2 and 3 as an imminent threat. No need to worry about recharge obviously, 3 uses is plenty.
Wow, that's actually a pretty good idea. I overlooked it completely because I automatically pegged it as a 'red' artifact, but this really is three Giant Growths on a stick, considering we don't play pump for the toughness boost.
On one hand, more 2cc cards could become a liability, but on the other hand, I'm still experimenting with BoP, so that just means 2 x 2cc cards hitting the board on turn 3.
I'll definitely try this, probably (finally) at the cost of Boar Umbra. Alas, Boar Umbra, I really wanted you to work, but...
Two new infectors spoiled, Necropede and Cystbearer. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't play Necropede over any of the other 2cc infectors, and 12 of those are probably enough for me. The Cystbearer vs. Ichor Rats, though... It's the choice of +2 toughness vs. a free poison counter, and the toughness might just win out here, also for the reason that Cystbearer costs one colored mana only. What do you think?
I really like this build. It seems solid already, with just over half the set revealed and a good handful of infectors still unknown. Anything from a new GG variation that gives trample or evasion to a 1cc infector will make the deck even stronger, but I think this is a very promising variation already.
Sideboard options? Depending on how much the artifact theme catches hold, I love the previous suggestion of Nature's Claim for its versatility in an artifact / artifact creature heavy environment. Remember, its drawback is completely irrelevant for us, so this card is actually strictly better than Naturalize in our deck.
Also, Inquisition could be a good sideboard substitute for Duress against aggro decks.
Lol, I actually wasn't expecting the exoskeleton to be the attention-grabber. For me, BLIGHT MAMBA is today's showstealer, plus it's awesome to write in capital letters.
The exoskeleton doesn't work for me at all in this deck. As you mention yourself, this only works with non-infect creatures, and using card slots on non-infect creatures just to be able to exoskeleton them is definitely not a viable strategy, at least for the aggro version. If you don't manage to exoskeleton them, they're completely useless to the strategy unless they have a different application than doing damage. Garruk's tokens, sure, in theory, since Garruk is a playable card in some versions of this deck even without the tokens. But on the other hand, you probably don't want Garruk to go -loyalty rather than go +loyalty and Overrun.
BoP are also an obvious target. But actually using card slots on the exoskeleton for borderline cases like these... eh, I don't like it.
EDIT: On another note, can anyone else confirm that we still have 10(!) instances of 'infect' unaccounted for? If true, I'd say that bodes pretty well for us.
Alright, so today's spoilers include no less than three new green cards. Of those, one is theoretically useful (Withstand Death) but too singular in its purpose compared to Vines, one is really useful but probably comes into the game too late (Asceticism). And then there's BLIGHT MAMBA.
Quite simply, I'm thinking this should just outright replace either Ichor Rats or Ichorclaw Myr, depending on how much you feel that playing 12 2-mana infectors is either overloading the slot or making *really* sure that you're getting that important turn 2-drop. As long as we're not seeing a turn 1 infector, I'm inclined to go with the pure speed and replace the Ichor Rats with this little beauty, dedicating my turn 3 to protecting / pumping my turn 2 drop while dropping a second infector. What beautiful about it is that when it starts attacking on turn 3, you can safely cast a Groundswell on it, keeping the mana open for regeneration, then tap out to put down a second infector post-combat. If they then decide to kill the Mamba, well, it's a 1-for-1, but you just came 50% closer to winning the game *and* played another threat. (It certainly also has some applications against the matchups where we'd normally be out-aggroed and want to hang around and block until the game turns around.)
In that, case, some advice: Playing the disgruntled customer would help a lot more if:
1. You actually paid anything for MTGSalvation's services
2. You actually had any alternatives, any other site to go to that offered a remotely comparable service (try naming one).
Goldfishing doesnt matter. Proxy it up against other actual decks and then come back with results. Maybe against faunashaman.dec or a similarly aggro deck.
Instead of dipping in to janky cards to buff your guys you should just be using good ones like garruk. I honestly wouldnt go further than garruk and vines. You should probably play some removal too. Creature enchantments are eternally bad, because they allow your opponenet to twoferone you by exiling the creature or destroying it while the enchantment is still on the stack. Don't use creature enchantments. Equipments are so many times better than any enchantments you can find.
And no lotus cobra for early putrefax / skityrix?
As much as I appreciate advice, it would be good if we could quickly move beyond the tedious level of 'don't rely on goldfishing' and 'don't play Auras'. I think we all understand why both these pieces of general advice are great for beginners, but also that they don't make sense in specific situations (this clearly being one).
Re: Goldfishing: Goldfishing is used to test what you bring to the table, which is half of the game. In a deck (like this) where you want to take the initiative and keep it until you win, you need to be able to goldfish to a certain standard. If a red aggro deck goldfishes an average of Turn 6, there's no reason to worry about the opponent at all, because you've got nothing to build on. I briefly mentioned the goldfishing average for this deck, because knowing that it goldfishes at turn 4 consistently tells me that the synergy is there in my own deck; *now* I need to start worrying about what I'm playing against. This is a pretty important starting point for any deck that wants to win on quick beatdown. Apart from that, I think we all know what you *shouldn't* base on goldfishing.
Re: Auras; 'don't play them' is good advice for new players because it quickly communicates something about the importance of card advantage to this game. There are no less than three reasons why this doesn't apply in this specific situation (or at least can't be applied out of hand before testing):
1 - The general 2-for-1 problem is a lot less likely with an umbra. Like uberdylan said, as opposed to a normal Aura, if this resolves, the chance of a 2-for-1 is a *lot* smaller than for a non-totem Aura. If they're actively keeping mana open when you can play your Umbra, you obviously keep dropping other threats / instant pump spells instead until they tap out. Keeping mana open on purpose to 2-for-1 the Aura on their turn 2-4 is definitely going to lose them the game.
2 - The four Duress will go a long way in helping us drop the Umbra / tell us whether not to.
3 - The four Vines will go a long way in helping us place the Umbra safely.
Additionally, dismissing the Umbra as 'janky' totally disregards that while you don't see Umbras played in Standard decks today, this deck specifically tries to abuse the synergy between Infect and +X/+X spells, which effectively makes the Umbra +6/+3. The card may not turn out to work for the deck, but it isn't placed in here out of ignorance about the *normal* properties and applications of Auras.
Re: Lotus Cobra: I'm sure you can make a more mid-range infect deck with this, and I encourage you to do so, but asking why it isn't in the above deck confuses me a bit. First, it's effectively a 0/1 creature for two mana in this deck. Second, it doesn't actually help us ramp into any of the 12 cards that'll win us the game most of the time (the 12 cheap infect creatures). Third, it is actively in conflict with the two 2-drops which we *really* want down ASAP. Again, I'm sure you can make an infect deck with Cobra, but it should be obvious why it isn't in here.
You should probably play some removal too.
If you're talking creature removal, this was addressed above and I think generally agreed on as unnecessary in this deck compared to what the card slots can do for your own strategy. If you can think of any creatures that'll pose problems, I'll think about it or swap Duress for Inquisition. Apart from that, it's the non-creature spells that I'm focusing on.
You might want to read what Quest AND Livewire Lash do.
Don't know if it was by accident, but you've definitely mixed up the comparisons. B/G would be sligh, and Mono G would be the slower version. You run Putrefax, Carrion Call - even Tangle Angler! - with no ramp. That's well into midrange already. There's no way a deck with CC and TA can be considered fast by the standards that SOM are going to set.
My B/G currently runs only 1- and 2-cc spells apart from 3 Hand of the Praetors. The rest is pump spells and even BoP's for extra speed. Mono G as you present it is definitely the slower of the decks.
EDIT: Poll's up.
As someone who just joined the thread and doesn't care one whit who started it, I can say that you were being extremely condescending way before that. I can't fathom why you'd want to play innocent when anyone can just click a link go back and rewatch your attitude in all its glory.
That said, what people are trying to explain to you is that a card which gives your opponent the choice of effects makes it worse than the card that just flat out wins on the first effect. This card reads "make your creature unblockable up until the point when it would kill your opponent, at which point it doesn't kill your opponent after all, but instead nets you a neat advantage that'll *help* you go the rest of the distance - as opposed to just giving you the victory".
THAT said, I agree that this is a really good card because it's so aggressively costed that until the point when the opponent will choose to block, the small mana investment will be worthwhile. I'm pretty dedicated to a G/B infect deck at this moment, and Infiltration Lens will be at its full potential here, because I play enough Vines, Groundswell and GG to make any opponent wary of letting any creatures through, even just a few poison counters into the game. The risk of a pump spell on my creature means that the opponent will likely give me the two cards earlier than they really should, just to be on the safe side. Not sure how much it'll do for a more standard aggro deck that's more open about its threats.
That's not how I would use it in any case. I definitely want to try Vector Asp out, not for playing it on turn 1 and spending B to blindly attack with it the following turn instead of playing a 2-drop (that would suck), but for playing it turn 1 and examining the situation. If I have a 2-drop infector in hand as well, I'll obviously play that on turn 2 and keep the Vector Asp at home. That still gives me an additional attacker to drop pump spells on on turn 3 if they have a blocker out or simply if they Bolt my 2-drop.
However, if I don't have a 2-drop in hand, I can attack with Vector asp on turn 2, quite possibly with a Groundswell on it for 5 poison counters on turn 2. In fact, Vector Asp allows me to sometimes goldfish on turn 3 with Groundswells and Vines. Not the most likely scenario, but nice.
So, the way I see it, Vector Asp should at least be tested, not for early attacking, but for spending turn 1 on getting another attacker out that they'll have to deal with by turn 3-5. *Any* infector getting through in those turns can mean game, and a 1cc creature gives us more options on turn 1 and 3.
Another idea, how about Infiltration Lens? Blockers are one of the main things that'll slow us down. Two cards per block sounds like a pretty damn good deal. Like with Vector Asp, it's another viable 1-drop that requires extra mana investment later, but also like Vector Asp, we don't have to spend that extra mana on it as early as possible, only whenever it suits us, which could be when we have our attacking force established.
Livewire Lash is interesting since infectors will deal damage as poison through it, but it's only of use if they plan to shoot our creatures down a lot. Even so, if they really run a lot of removal, they can shoot in response to the equip, so not sure about this.
All the other new infectors seem too expensive to run. Corpse Cur does give off card advantage in a nice way, but if I have to play 4cc stuff other than Hand of the Praetors in this deck, I'd probably prefer Garruk or something else.
Tel-Jilad fallen *could* be a sideboard card if the Tempered Steel decks become popular... and even so, maybe not.
Wow, that's actually a pretty good idea. I overlooked it completely because I automatically pegged it as a 'red' artifact, but this really is three Giant Growths on a stick, considering we don't play pump for the toughness boost.
On one hand, more 2cc cards could become a liability, but on the other hand, I'm still experimenting with BoP, so that just means 2 x 2cc cards hitting the board on turn 3.
I'll definitely try this, probably (finally) at the cost of Boar Umbra. Alas, Boar Umbra, I really wanted you to work, but...
Nope. Too few artifacts or cards where artifacts matter.
I really like this build. It seems solid already, with just over half the set revealed and a good handful of infectors still unknown. Anything from a new GG variation that gives trample or evasion to a 1cc infector will make the deck even stronger, but I think this is a very promising variation already.
Sideboard options? Depending on how much the artifact theme catches hold, I love the previous suggestion of Nature's Claim for its versatility in an artifact / artifact creature heavy environment. Remember, its drawback is completely irrelevant for us, so this card is actually strictly better than Naturalize in our deck.
Also, Inquisition could be a good sideboard substitute for Duress against aggro decks.
The exoskeleton doesn't work for me at all in this deck. As you mention yourself, this only works with non-infect creatures, and using card slots on non-infect creatures just to be able to exoskeleton them is definitely not a viable strategy, at least for the aggro version. If you don't manage to exoskeleton them, they're completely useless to the strategy unless they have a different application than doing damage. Garruk's tokens, sure, in theory, since Garruk is a playable card in some versions of this deck even without the tokens. But on the other hand, you probably don't want Garruk to go -loyalty rather than go +loyalty and Overrun.
BoP are also an obvious target. But actually using card slots on the exoskeleton for borderline cases like these... eh, I don't like it.
EDIT: On another note, can anyone else confirm that we still have 10(!) instances of 'infect' unaccounted for? If true, I'd say that bodes pretty well for us.
Quite simply, I'm thinking this should just outright replace either Ichor Rats or Ichorclaw Myr, depending on how much you feel that playing 12 2-mana infectors is either overloading the slot or making *really* sure that you're getting that important turn 2-drop. As long as we're not seeing a turn 1 infector, I'm inclined to go with the pure speed and replace the Ichor Rats with this little beauty, dedicating my turn 3 to protecting / pumping my turn 2 drop while dropping a second infector. What beautiful about it is that when it starts attacking on turn 3, you can safely cast a Groundswell on it, keeping the mana open for regeneration, then tap out to put down a second infector post-combat. If they then decide to kill the Mamba, well, it's a 1-for-1, but you just came 50% closer to winning the game *and* played another threat. (It certainly also has some applications against the matchups where we'd normally be out-aggroed and want to hang around and block until the game turns around.)
What do you guys think?
In that, case, some advice: Playing the disgruntled customer would help a lot more if:
1. You actually paid anything for MTGSalvation's services
2. You actually had any alternatives, any other site to go to that offered a remotely comparable service (try naming one).
That was awesome. You've got the Ignorant Poster nailed down perfectly.
As much as I appreciate advice, it would be good if we could quickly move beyond the tedious level of 'don't rely on goldfishing' and 'don't play Auras'. I think we all understand why both these pieces of general advice are great for beginners, but also that they don't make sense in specific situations (this clearly being one).
Re: Goldfishing: Goldfishing is used to test what you bring to the table, which is half of the game. In a deck (like this) where you want to take the initiative and keep it until you win, you need to be able to goldfish to a certain standard. If a red aggro deck goldfishes an average of Turn 6, there's no reason to worry about the opponent at all, because you've got nothing to build on. I briefly mentioned the goldfishing average for this deck, because knowing that it goldfishes at turn 4 consistently tells me that the synergy is there in my own deck; *now* I need to start worrying about what I'm playing against. This is a pretty important starting point for any deck that wants to win on quick beatdown. Apart from that, I think we all know what you *shouldn't* base on goldfishing.
Re: Auras; 'don't play them' is good advice for new players because it quickly communicates something about the importance of card advantage to this game. There are no less than three reasons why this doesn't apply in this specific situation (or at least can't be applied out of hand before testing):
1 - The general 2-for-1 problem is a lot less likely with an umbra. Like uberdylan said, as opposed to a normal Aura, if this resolves, the chance of a 2-for-1 is a *lot* smaller than for a non-totem Aura. If they're actively keeping mana open when you can play your Umbra, you obviously keep dropping other threats / instant pump spells instead until they tap out. Keeping mana open on purpose to 2-for-1 the Aura on their turn 2-4 is definitely going to lose them the game.
2 - The four Duress will go a long way in helping us drop the Umbra / tell us whether not to.
3 - The four Vines will go a long way in helping us place the Umbra safely.
Additionally, dismissing the Umbra as 'janky' totally disregards that while you don't see Umbras played in Standard decks today, this deck specifically tries to abuse the synergy between Infect and +X/+X spells, which effectively makes the Umbra +6/+3. The card may not turn out to work for the deck, but it isn't placed in here out of ignorance about the *normal* properties and applications of Auras.
Re: Lotus Cobra: I'm sure you can make a more mid-range infect deck with this, and I encourage you to do so, but asking why it isn't in the above deck confuses me a bit. First, it's effectively a 0/1 creature for two mana in this deck. Second, it doesn't actually help us ramp into any of the 12 cards that'll win us the game most of the time (the 12 cheap infect creatures). Third, it is actively in conflict with the two 2-drops which we *really* want down ASAP. Again, I'm sure you can make an infect deck with Cobra, but it should be obvious why it isn't in here.
If you're talking creature removal, this was addressed above and I think generally agreed on as unnecessary in this deck compared to what the card slots can do for your own strategy. If you can think of any creatures that'll pose problems, I'll think about it or swap Duress for Inquisition. Apart from that, it's the non-creature spells that I'm focusing on.