Not a huge fan of a proposed Underdog format that is even weaker than in its current form. The weaker the tribes, the less decks (at least the most successful ones) will rely on the tribe, and more on some combos/powerful off-tribe cards that have nothing to do with it. There will always be couple of tribes that will be the strongest no matter how much you reduce the options, so the change would not automatically make for more diverse field, just less powerful. This is also Legacy after all, and are say Berserkers/Soltari really too strong for a format where you can play all the degenerate non-creature spells? If those decks tend to dominate I propose that we make the field more powerful by including other tribes that
are less played in regular tribal, rather than turn the Underdog completely into some strange legacy format where we will be casting Giant Spiders along Swords to Plowshares.

I also like the current system with 2x Regular, Pure and Underdog. If there is any format of the three that should be set aside for an occassional specialty format, its underdog IMO, Pure is much more exciting and fun.

Part of the problem with the infinite combos is that control is hard to build properly with a 25-minute clock, and sometimes a 25-minute clock on top of that, as control is not allowed to optimize its own win cons that are already likely handed by your opponent's removal. I'm not the fastest in the world, so then I'm reduced to combo, ramp (which is a mana combo), or aggro (including midrange). The latter is heavily metagamed against, and maybe dubiously so since I feel most of the lists I've seen should be more proactive. Another problem with choosing a fairer win con is that you can get beat by the unfair ones by other players. Kill or be killed.

At any rate, I begged Kuma a couple of times to ban Top before last week's event, but (if I interpreted him correctly) he is rightly apprehensive of the secondary consequences and decided not to do it. I still think he should, and that banning Altar alone in Pure is not enough; and the combo would still dominate Underdog as the ban list currently stands. Top combo is particularly egregious since it doesn't involve a single creature.

Berlin: I agree that Umbral Mantle (etc.) on the ban list is a cruel joke compared to some of the more problematic combos. Maybe we could get the third-tier tribes to work if we banned the top-50 (top 100?) most played off-tribe cards in Legacy and Modern, updating the list once a year.

But maybe the best way for me to have my Spiders vs. Serpents fix (the "real" tribal) is to do it through a deck contest or column (or both) eventually getting stock, fair lists (however we define fair) for most of the underdog tribes, then finding a play partner willing to run a tournament with me on random nights. It might take a year to round out all the lists, but it could prove fascinating, and would be subject to various re-runs in future years with different results.

Thanks, Bazaar of Baghdad, for your welcoming tone, invitation to play and test a Germ deck for fun (with suggestions for doing it), and for your shared enthusiasm for the game. I can understand the need for conformity to a set of rules, even if these rules may limit overall opportunities in smaller areas.

I think I like Tribal more than anything at the moment. As my login name suggests, I write comic books. Being a stay-at-home husband/father/writer, I want to make the most of my long-time love of the game. Like many players, I took a break from the game while addressing other life priorities, but want to play again for fun.

Now, my kids are growing and have a shared interest in fantasy and science fiction. Playing MtG seemed like a natural solution for quick bursts of fun and time together. Sometimes, my kids want to play LEGOS, or study bugs outside, or (whatever); I can still play MTGO when the kids are asleep or in school. Being newer to general formats, having a particular direction to go makes financial sense, as well as guide my future choices to match a format.

Starting with pauper, I found out quickly that netdecking a top deck is the best way to play. Even if cards were freely given, I don't think I would like to play Delver + Delver + Delver again and again. A few times? Sure. But the format seems to be limited by the dominant types, with rogue decks being very rare and underpowered by the format giants. Tribal, it seems, welcomes rogue decks, and even two popular Elves-themed decks can look very different.

I moved into Standard Pauper, with a limited resource pool. While I found greater success, I still stalled against the top tiers decks in the format. Will my warrior-themed standard pauper deck work? Sometimes...but, as I was playing with the warriors deck, I recalled a few things:

My first card I ever bought was a 4th Ed. Black Knight. I'm sure there was a rare in the pack, and some cool cards, too, but I was transported away by the black knight. His abilities made sense. His casting cost seemed do-able. Knights seemed like a great clarion call to the fantasy format, for me.

My daughters and boy like themes, too. Rather than a bunch of collected pieces to a metagame puzzle, Tribal would allow them to express their individual attractions to fey, zombies, and the rest of a wide format. Aside from some block tribal boons (ie: tribal sorceries or instants, like for merfolk), the format seems very balanced. Yeah, it'll be tough to sleeve-up a 'badger' deck, but this format offers incentives for trying rogue-competitive decks.

While I'm sure I'll see my fair share of elves, merfolk, goblins, etc., the format seems to offer balance and a consideration of imbalance, too. Players seem interested in analysis as well as play. Even if it's my 3rd straight match against elves, I am 1) likely to see different takes on elves (for example: mono-green, mono-black, and dual-colored elves) and 2) reminded that, even if this is the umpteenth elvish deck I face, the pilot across the table from me loves playing with WotC's elves. This is a personal investment into playing the game, not merely netdecking and nerfing the metagame with the latest bomb-rare (or, bomb-common).

Thanks for the advice, and I look forward to seeing you around the forums here. I think Tribal is a place I could feel welcomed and meet my minor needs for themes, inexpensive (yeah, I gotta watch the prices of some tribes) competitive play, and online community. I felt lost in the swirl of sameness for the sake of winning, but like the Tribal format and vibe. Thanks, everyone. I may not always say things well, and even may need an editor to make sure what I think gets across to more people, but you all seem very motivated by Tribal, and welcoming to new players and new, germ-free decks.

Looks like a decent Aggro deck. I'd be inclined to add in some one-drop threats like bloodsoaked champion, maybe trade in for some more cost effective and less circumstantial removal like a set of swords to plowshares. Not wholly convinced by the overrun effects, I might be more inclined to trade them in for a set of obsidian battle-axe. Swords are up on MTGOtraders at 3 cents, battle axes on one. Definitely worth testing, though. Might need a post-wrath plan. I'd be tempted to top the curve with Blood-chin Fanatic as a finisher and a way to have extra reach if things get bogged down, 7 cents each.

AJ is essentially correct. Your base is black warrior creatures. Ideally, these want to attack your opponent down to 0 life before the opponent has set up its defenses, as you have no removal once they do. You need each spell you have to equate with some kind of life loss for your opponent. The deck will have diminishing returns the longer the game goes as your creatures will get outclassed. Speed is everything. You could have splashed red for direct damage spells that clear a path for your creatures of opposing blockers or as pure damage directed to the opponent. Each non-creature spell you use, in essence, is your bet that it will deal more damage than, say, a Lightning Bolt, or its slightly less powerful cousins. Most of your non-Warrior slots are combo cards, even if it may not seem like it at first blush. For example, Rush of Battle, at the top of your curve, could be a red enchantment or instant that deals damage correctly. Rush of Battle can do more damage, but only in combination with Warriors. You need about two warriors in play when you draw Rush to equal the damage a 4cc red spell could do with Warriors or none. Therefore to be worth its slot, you really need at least three Warriors in play and you have to bank on your opponent not having a removal spell or cheaper counterspell. As you can expect, Tribal has plenty of creature removal so it's not always easy to have three creatures in play that can attack to make Rush worth it. This is a shaky combo which you should learn to try to avoid. The lifelink aspect of the card (and Harsh Sustenance) is only relevant against decks where your Warriors are the bigger, slower tribe that also tries to win with incremental direct damage, there shouldn't be many of these as Warriors can be pretty fast. Those that do, often play lots of removal (that doubles as direct damage), so your Rush combo can be easily neutralized.

Other cards have problems too. To get value of Mardu Hordechief, you have to have white mana, three overall, have a successful attack this turn (your opponent will try hard to prevent this), and even with the 1/1 token you get, it still doesn't do the amount of damage next turn that other options could give you at 3-4 mana. Another mini-combo card that is extremely fragile. Graveblade Marauder will probably trade 1-1 with many other 3-drops or 4-drops, which usually favors your opponent who wants to stall the game out for his expensive spells. It gives your opponent options as not blocking may be way better. If you have no creatures in your yard (exiled? stalled?), it takes that card four whole turns to equate the same damage of a 1 casting cost Lightning Bolt. It can potentially do more, but I would have misgivings if anyone said it were likely. Hand of Silumgar does two damage on the second turn for 2 mana and trades with any other 2-drop creature. Trading is very bad for you, as discussed above. In a resource war, you want to trade your 1-drops for their 2- or 3-drops, in order to get value. Your list will probably do best in Pure (Warriors are not eligible for Underdog), since you use only Warriors and people can't trade your creatures with the most common 1-drop removal options like Lightning Bolt or Swords to Plowshares.

Obsidian Battle-Axe is a great addition as it increases the amount of damage that each new warrior does and is not hurt by mass removal spells. Your best Warrior that you're not playing is probably Vampiric Lacerator, a one-drop with 2 power. Gatekeeper of Malakir is a 2-drop that plays better as a 3-drop, clearing the way for your army and attacking for 2. I would probably top the curve with Ashenmoor Gouger a 4-power creature for 3 mana and Lifebane Zombie a 3-power creature for 3 mana that is very hard to block and absolutely wrecks havoc on green and white decks as a side bonus. Chief of the Edge in your deck is kind of nice, but not worth the White splash all by himself. You can really fix your mana by playing mono-black or by splashing red cards that are good even later in the game, unlike Chief.

If you can't afford Badlands (B/R mana) at $2.5 each, then consider Dragonskull Summit for .05 each.

This is really just scratching the surface, but I hope it helps.