100%: Down and Dirty

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “100%: Down and Dirty”.

  1. Great article.

    I have tried this deck out some, and I really enjoy playing it.

    I really enjoy some of the off the wall, brilliant card choices you come up with, such as Mask of Memory and Seedtime.

    I’ve several times felt puzzled by decks like this or Lundstrom’s UG or UGB. I don’t really know how to think about them, because I can’t figure out why they’re not bad on account of trying to be aggressive and controlling at the same time. This article helps my brain with this quandry – you mention that you want to be able to decide each game if you’re going to be the aggressor or not, and the deck tries to give itself options so it can actually make that decision. That makes some sense.

    The exclusion of Baneslayer Angel is controversial, I think. I also think you’re obsessed with not having Power > Tougness creatures in a deck that includes Doran. Did you leave anything else out (aside from Boas) to accommodate his ability?

    Anyway, like I said, great article.

  2. After some consideration, I still stand by the no Baneslayer decision. Truly, the card is insane. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right card (beyond the double WW mana issue). It was in the initial draft of the deck, as was Exalted Angel. I honestly almost would cut Loxodon Hierarch, if that gives any indication as to how necessary the angels are to winning and in a timely fashion, no less.

    I wouldn’t say I went overboard with the toughness>power decision, either. A great deal of the creatures just happen to be proportioned as such: Shadowmage, Viper, Tarmogoyf, Brushhopper, and so on. Factoring that in, Doran is a substantial threat on his lonesome that works almost as a support card for the aforementioned cards. The boas are great creatures, albeit mana intensive when you’re trying to hold down the fort and keep up counter magic mana. Again, just not in character for my end objective.

    In both instances, you could argue any number of potential creatures could or would do this or that, but in the end I was stringent in editing the running version, which I think contributed highly to its success.

    I intend to address this issue in the very near future, as I feel it an issue that requires and deserves some attention.

  3. Perhaps I should have been nicer and said something like this instead: “I notice you are careful to make sure you pick the right combination of creatures before you throw Doran into a deck.” I counted in your list, and I see four (very strong) creatures with Power > Toughness; I suppose you wouldn’t have included those if you were truly obsessed with toughness > power.

  4. No need to be nice, as no offense was taken. Just responding to your comments with the sole hope of giving you more thorough insight.

    As with a number of the builds I have proposed, feel free to edit as you deem fit. But I will say, I have had people come back to me after the fact and complain of issues post their tweak of the suggested build. All I can say to that is: if the deck did well, esp. ones that did well and/or won in multiple events, why not try it as is before taking out what could be potentially (and intentionally) integral pieces of the whole?

    I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I most definitely have proven (on more than one occasion) that I have enough.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>