Post new topic   Reply to topic

Pauper Land Destruction?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
2112et
Initiate


Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
20 lands and a high mana curve...


Good point, think I'll try pulling out two Everbark Shamans and put two forests in their place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dayero1
Apprentice


Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamtastic wrote:

The other thought I've had is a Mono red deck that abuses symmetrical effects of 'sacrifice' cards.

Like, first turn, lotus petal, [c]crack the earth[/c]->Land
Turn two Land->[c]Tremble[/c]
Turn 3... you're at two lands they're at one or less.

I don't know if that would be consistent enough though. It would have games where it just takes control on turn 1 and rides it straight through. Other games it would sputter and die a sad, sad death.

It still might be worth digging into though.


i had the same idea, but was thinking about phyrexian walker + crack the earth, together with reckless charge, because my version of mono-red ld hadnt much to do on its first turn. i found the mono-green version to be stronger and never tested the walker.
_________________
there is no reality other than that which WotC mandates
-Sensei
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TolarianScientist
Guildmage


Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 283

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've tried more or less every version listed here. Not to advocate my build, but something similar is doing pretty good. (dropped the looter il-kor engine, and started using a more reliable mulldrifter, added other mana artifacts). I think izzet chronarch is a key craeture because "it is" a creature, and can recurr LD from the grave. 12 LD spells should have to be enough, if you run more they will just stuck in your hand.
Whenever going up to 16, the additional 4 should be wrecking ball, so they can have a second use.
You may laugh, but tnx to giraffe's metagame prevision, I will eventually take the UR ld deck to the first PE. It really is a dog versus MUC, but has a decent game against anything else. (martyr MD forever..Smile)
_________________

Good Game Garrison - a.k.a. Finwe_de_Van
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Emay
Neophyte


Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm surprised BG isn't the default build for this deck. Yes, I know stone rain lands on turn 2 easier than icequake, but you have elves of deep shadow to offset that and black gives you better options to capitalize off an opponent's early mana screw (like mana skimmer, okiba-gang shinobi, etc)

Pretty sure monogreen is just too weak, as it only has a single 3-mana LD spell.

I'm thinking something like:

1 golgari rot farm
13 forest
10 swamp

4 llanowar elves
4 elves of deep shadow
2 fyndhorn elves
4 phyrexian rager
3 mana skimmer
2 okiba-gang shinobi
3 aurochs herd

3 diabolic edict
4 icequake
4 thermokarst
3 mwonvoli acid-moss

Completely untested

There's also the option to make it heavier black and cut the fyndhorn elves and something else (ragers?) for chittering rats, and run choking sands instead of mwonvoli acid-moss. Of course if you do that, you should probably cut the aurochs for some other finisher....maybe use snow-covered lands and chilling shade.


Last edited by Emay on Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:51 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pseudotropheus
Neophyte


Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last night at TPDC I played against a LD deck Round1.

I hate to say this, but I was not impressed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpikeBoyM
Community Liaison


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 1800

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Land Destruction, on its own, as an overload strategy, is bad.

Sorry, it just is.

LD is at its best when you can back it up with an early, hard to deal with threat OR when you aren't required to invest a new card every turn. Look at old mana denial strategies that have worked: Winter Orb, Rishadan Port, Tangle Wire. These are all one card (all rare, mind you) that are a one card investment for a persistent (or multiple turn, in the case of Tangle Wire) that deny mana- think of them as a "free" Stone Rain every turn. Even the one time cards that saw play- Armageddon and Plow Under- did so because they provided an immense advantage in both investment and tempo. And even then, these cards were at their best when accompanied by cheap two power beaters (Jackal Pup or Wild Dogs, for example). Pauper has no such effect that can continually shut down mana production. At its best, mana denial is a supplemental strategy in an overall game plan to hinder the opponent's board development. The original model of Thresher was to play a difficult to deal with threat (Mongrel or Werebear [they were houses in that particular meta]) and then take out a land while having a beat stick on your end. The tempo came in the form of the creatures, where by virtue of the rest of the deck it was often easy to have a 4/4 swinging on turn 3, right after a land hit the yard.

If one wanted to make a "dedicated" LD deck, I would examine ways to make sure you were as tempo positive as possible. You would want to immediately precede or follow up your first LD spell with a significant threat (in RG, Streetbreaker Wurm springs to mind). Once you have developed a positive board position, the LD does not matter as much since you should be clearing the path for your low priced beater.
In other words, you never want more than 6 LD spells main, and 1-2 of those should be utility spells such as Icefall, Wrecking Ball, Befoul, Aftershock, or Plague Spores.

-Alex
_________________
I wrote for www.puremtgo.com
I now write for www.starcitygames.com
Personal Blog: www.nerdtothecore.blogspot.com
If I talk in red I'm Moderating
If I talk in blue I'm the Community Liaison
@nerdtothecore on twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
lathspel
TPDC Coordinator


Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 566
Location: Chicagoland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw a suspend guy (the 5/5 Baloth) in a LD deck last night, and really could see that as the key to symmetrical LD. You could be almost purely symmetrical, as long as you have a way to make sure that your one or two threats will be able to withstand your opponent's 1-2 mana answers that they can bring to bear. The 5/5 Baloth dies to double Lightning Bolt and Innocent Blood, but other than that it looks pretty good for the job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emay
Neophyte


Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SpikeBoyM wrote:
Land Destruction, on its own, as an overload strategy, is bad.


That's a generalization that's disproven by the success of decks like Legion Land Loss, magnivore, ponza, etc. Worth noting, LLL was successful in a format that included busted tolarian academy combo, necropotence, survival of the fittest and recurring nightmare, hatred, oath of druids, etc...Here in pauper where decks have to play fair (er well, more fair, anyway), being restricted to 1-2 lands in play while your opponent is dropping aurochs is tough to come back from.

It's a deck that thrives in certain metas. It's good against combo, board control, and ramp-style decks (and of course, decks that get greedy for colors). It's weak against decks that usually empty their hands quickly (like slivers/affinity) or that can counter nearly everything from turn 1 onward. Right now it might be a bad choice in pauper, but if we see a shift towards MBC and storm, it could do some serious winning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpikeBoyM
Community Liaison


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 1800

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Emay wrote:
SpikeBoyM wrote:
Land Destruction, on its own, as an overload strategy, is bad.


That's a generalization that's disproven by the success of decks like Legion Land Loss, magnavore, ponza, etc. Worth noting, LLL was successful in a format that included busted tolarian academy combo, necropotence, survival of the fittest and recurring nightmare, hatred, oath of druids, etc...Here in pauper where decks have to play fair (er well, more fair, anyway), being restricted to 1-2 lands in play while your opponent is dropping aurochs is tough to come back from.

It's a deck that thrives in certain metas. It's good against combo, board control, and ramp-style decks. It's weak against decks that usually empty their hands quickly (like slivers/affinity) or that can counter nearly everything from turn 1 onward. Right now it might be a bad choice in pauper, but if we see a shift towards MBC and storm, it could do some serious winning.


I should have qualified my statement to include "on it's own in Pauper."
Except the two decks you mentioned, to me, are not pure LD decks. Yes, LLL is the prototypical "Stone Rain.dec" but at the same time it can generate a 4/5 on turn 3 while still stunting growth. That is the important part- the ability to generate an early, hard to deal with beater. To be just. LLL came at a very early point in metagame evolution where a creature as fragile as Ernahm Djinn was considered "tops."
Vore was only good because the cards in question all fed Vore. Every LD spell was a sorcery and therefore was able to feed the beast. If there was a 'Vore analog in Pauper (which there isn't, IMO) then yes, I could see wanting to run a deck like this.
At the same time, I have found MBC to be one of the more resilient decks to LD since it tends to pack a ton of lands and discard to pick out that ideal spell.

-Alex
_________________
I wrote for www.puremtgo.com
I now write for www.starcitygames.com
Personal Blog: www.nerdtothecore.blogspot.com
If I talk in red I'm Moderating
If I talk in blue I'm the Community Liaison
@nerdtothecore on twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Emay
Neophyte


Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lathspel wrote:
I saw a suspend guy (the 5/5 Baloth) in a LD deck last night, and really could see that as the key to symmetrical LD. You could be almost purely symmetrical, as long as you have a way to make sure that your one or two threats will be able to withstand your opponent's 1-2 mana answers that they can bring to bear. The 5/5 Baloth dies to double Lightning Bolt and Innocent Blood, but other than that it looks pretty good for the job.


The problem is you really want to play an elf turn 1. Not doing so sets your LD assault back a turn, meaning your opponent has 1 more land in play and isn't nearly as restricted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emay
Neophyte


Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SpikeBoyM wrote:


I should have qualified my statement to include "on it's own in Pauper."
Except the two decks you mentioned, to me, are not pure LD decks. Yes, LLL is the prototypical "Stone Rain.dec" but at the same time it can generate a 4/5 on turn 3 while still stunting growth. That is the important part- the ability to generate an early, hard to deal with beater. To be just. LLL came at a very early point in metagame evolution where a creature as fragile as Ernahm Djinn was considered "tops."
Vore was only good because the cards in question all fed Vore. Every LD spell was a sorcery and therefore was able to feed the beast. If there was a 'Vore analog in Pauper (which there isn't, IMO) then yes, I could see wanting to run a deck like this.
At the same time, I have found MBC to be one of the more resilient decks to LD since it tends to pack a ton of lands and discard to pick out that ideal spell.

-Alex


If your definition of a "pure LD deck" has nothing but stone rains and no finishers, then no wonder you think it's an inherently flawed gameplan. Duh.

The LLL list has 15 cards that remove lands 1-for-1. The magnivore list I'm looking at has 14 1-for-1s and 3 wildfires.

You're just nit-picking about win-cons. You can't deny that both of those decks devote a considerable portion of deck-space to disrupting an opponent's mana supply as early and often as possible, until an "Okay I'm ready to try to win now" stage is reached.

You might be right that LD isn't a viable strategy in pauper, but if so it's because it lacks the right tools to switch to that "win now" stage. Pauper DOES offer the ability to begin nuking lands on turn 2, and building around that exact gameplan HAS worked in the past when it has been available.

Based on that, I don't consider it a waste of time to build and test an LD deck.


Last edited by Emay on Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpikeBoyM
Community Liaison


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 1800

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Emay wrote:
SpikeBoyM wrote:


I should have qualified my statement to include "on it's own in Pauper."
Except the two decks you mentioned, to me, are not pure LD decks. Yes, LLL is the prototypical "Stone Rain.dec" but at the same time it can generate a 4/5 on turn 3 while still stunting growth. That is the important part- the ability to generate an early, hard to deal with beater. To be just. LLL came at a very early point in metagame evolution where a creature as fragile as Ernahm Djinn was considered "tops."
Vore was only good because the cards in question all fed Vore. Every LD spell was a sorcery and therefore was able to feed the beast. If there was a 'Vore analog in Pauper (which there isn't, IMO) then yes, I could see wanting to run a deck like this.
At the same time, I have found MBC to be one of the more resilient decks to LD since it tends to pack a ton of lands and discard to pick out that ideal spell.

-Alex


You're just nit-picking about win-cons. You can't deny that all the decks I mentioned devote a considerable portion of deck-space to disrupting an opponent's mana supply as early and often as possible, until an "Okay I'm ready to try to win now" stage is reached.

You might be right that LD isn't a viable strategy in pauper, but if so it's because it lacks the right tools to switch to that "win now" stage. Pauper DOES offer the ability to begin nuking lands on turn 2, and building around that exact gameplan HAS worked in the past.

Based on that, I don't consider it a waste of time to build and test an LD deck.


I am just speaking from experience- ask around, I love Stone Rain.
Heck, my current Red Deck Winds for the queues features 4 Molten Rain and 2 Icefall. I just find that going all in on LD is very risky. Yes, if you get the draw you win handily, but anything other than a perfect or near-perfect curve I find it is just not worth the investment.

Now, that being said, I think a BR LD style deck is the route to go since you have ways to handle early drops through removal and discard and can "accelerate" to 4 on turn three with a Rakdos Signet. These have been my most successful LD decks.

-Alex
_________________
I wrote for www.puremtgo.com
I now write for www.starcitygames.com
Personal Blog: www.nerdtothecore.blogspot.com
If I talk in red I'm Moderating
If I talk in blue I'm the Community Liaison
@nerdtothecore on twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
JAMZONFIRE
Neophyte


Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dark ritual+rancid earth turn one, followed by any number of nasty turn two threats (say, wicked akuba, as a personal fovirite), could be nasty in a mono-black mid range deck. Of course strategies based around ritual draws are very inconsistent, but rancid earth seems like it would be a particulariy dangerous tool in mono-black; this would totally hose storm (Low land count+ come into play tapped lands= vulnerability to turn 1/2 ld)
Not exactly a consistent play, but certainly deadly
_________________
yo nice
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lathspel
TPDC Coordinator


Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 566
Location: Chicagoland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Emay wrote:
lathspel wrote:
I saw a suspend guy (the 5/5 Baloth) in a LD deck last night, and really could see that as the key to symmetrical LD. You could be almost purely symmetrical, as long as you have a way to make sure that your one or two threats will be able to withstand your opponent's 1-2 mana answers that they can bring to bear. The 5/5 Baloth dies to double Lightning Bolt and Innocent Blood, but other than that it looks pretty good for the job.


The problem is you really want to play an elf turn 1. Not doing so sets your LD assault back a turn, meaning your opponent has 1 more land in play and isn't nearly as restricted.


I don't think you want to go Elf, since that gives a lot more decks a way to interact with your strategy. Wild Growth would be better, for example.

I think it depends on where you can go symmetrical and/or double up symmetrical and asymmetrical. I.e.:
Turn 1 accelerate
Turn 2 Stone Rain
Turn 3 Crack the Earth plus Thermokarst means you can "catch up" a bit.
Or even Turn 3 Baloth, Crack the Earth, Tremor.

I agree that there's tension between creating pressure and disruption, which is part of why this has never been a consistent Pauper deck in the past. There's no good way to regulate your draws and keep the disruption coming, plus your opponents can do a lot with 1-2 mana in Classic.

The logical "best card" for this kind of deck would be something like Werebear, where the acceleration is good early, and the beats are a strong closer late. This deck might also want to play Lotus Petal - that would let you go Turn 1 Werebear, turn 2 Stone Rain. But again, now your opponent can kill your Bear before you get going.

As far as keeping the disruption coming, I really see some thing like Icefall being mandatory (likely with a Dredge creature and a sac outlet). You've got to be able to topdeck LD if it seems like your opponent is getting their act together.


Last edited by lathspel on Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
procumbo
Archmage


Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 915

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oddly enough, the monored list I posted earlier is X-0 in the queues (I think it's 3-0 or 4-0). I think it's because it has reasonable game against Slivers and Martyr is amazing right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PDCMagic.com Forum Index -> Classic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 3 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP