Not to somehow diminish you guys' conversation but can we please keep the long drawn out comments that take like 5 min to read each to the forums? I mean feel free to post the link when you make a thread on the forum but these comments are just ridiculus.
Thank you :P
BTW, Spikey his name: 53N531 = Sensei if you didn't catch that lol
Actually, I was thinking of paper 5Color, which is closer to Prismatic with MED than the old Prismatic. I have seen a lot of Force of Wills played in paper 5Color, but rarely seen Pact of Negation.
We are talking prismatic, right? Flash Hulk has been neutered, so I don't know how many turn 2-4 combo kills there are out there, also there is no guarantee that you will have a second blue card in your hand to pitch.
I just can't wrap my mind around why this would be good in prismatic, I have never played with one before ... and it looks like you tried to answer my question using vintage-legacy formats as examples. I have no doubt of its power there.
If an opponent is going off on turn two, Force of Will can stop that - Pact of Negation cannot (okay, technically it can, but you are going to have some problems paying at the start of turn three.) You can also hard cast Force of Will later in the game.
Currently, many Vintage combo decks play both. Control decks will probably play both - but I would still prefer FoW over a Pact any day.
Generally, the Ledgewalker is indeed the most effective path to victory given a random matchup in the current metagame. However, with 15 maindeck creatures and 4 tutors that search 6 cards deep, I find that recently I have had relatively little problems finding the correct creature for the situation as it is needed. Surely, with only 19 total card effects that could result in a resolved creature, it is statistically less likely to draw a threat in its opening hand than say, any aggro deck in the format not named Blue Beats, however once the game begins Ledgewalker actually has the statistical advantage over the majority of aggro decks.
I don't think I've ever intentionally mulliganed out of a playable hand in order to get a ledgewalker. As you've said, the odds are highly out of my favour, and its usually irrelevant all things considered. I think however if more people would take the time to play the deck they would find that you are actually rarely strapped for a creature to cast or two. I think the largest problem with the deck is maintaining pressure in the early game. It is common for your opponent to be able to handle your one or two threats during the first four turns of the game, especially if your opponent is running counterspells, leaving you with an extreme statistical disadvantage when compared to almost any other deck in the format if placed in that same situation, due to the nature of the beast. This is largely unavoidable pre-sideboard, although things get quite a bit more favourable afterwards with recursion and additional creatures coming in as necessary.
As for an opening hand with two ledgewalkers and no enchants. I for one sir welcome those hands. That means I am guaranteed 2 chances at starting a chain, and with 16 enchantments maindeck plus ripple and cantrip effects, I am relatively never strapped for pump.
Apologies about the multiple posts, the system was giving me an error and I wasn't aware that it was still posting. Feel free to take some down.
Sorry for the delay in reply gentlemen, work and all calling.
I think the depth to which Khiareq and I have at least attempted to explain the thought processes that went through our brains as the deck was created should at least sufficiently defend the decks credibility, at least for my conscience.
A good deal of the topics that were discussed while I was gone are just rehashes of things that I covered last night, so feel free to carefully reread everyones posts at your leisure dear reader. There were however a few new topics so I'll go over those.
I was relatively intrigued by Khiareq's explanation of how the deck acquires virtual card advantage. I had never really thought of the gameplan like that, but it makes sense. A dead card in your hand is as if the card does not exist, so depending on how strict of a definition of card advantage you want to uphold, I could easily see it being construed as such.
As far as adaptation, yeah its pretty elementary to realize that a deck has full control over how it improves or lowers its chances of victory through both maindeck and sideboard choices, but I think there is something to be said for the number of relevant counters that any one deck can present in a given situation to combat any particular weakness. In most decks, as you point out in your article, you have to have a serious consideration for at least 3 major archetypes as well as what the politically correct professionals in this competetive game like to refer to rogue decks. This means that not only is your maindeck theoretically altered before your games begin to combat those opponents, but your 15 cards in your sideboard are theoretically divided up amongst those weaknesses you are likely to incur versus any one of those anticipated decks.
Now, in this nightwalker deck in particular, you don't really have that restriction. Instead of preparing for 3 major archetypes, you prepare for 3 major cards (an approximation, of course). So you have 15 slots to prepare for an absolute maximum of 12 anticipated viable threats to your gameplan given this isolated metaphor. Not only are probabilities already in your numerical favour, but there are two additional factors to consider. One, is that the likihood of a given deck playing all of the relevant threats to your decks gameplan all at once are incredibly low. So low in fact that I would go so far as to say that no deck actually plays all of these relevant threats together, further increasing your chances of having a relevant answer to any given relevant threat.
Additionally, given the known major viable threats to the decks gameplan, a number of cards that I commonly allocate to answer these questions in fact answer more than one problem at once. This is obviously a relevant prospect in any sideboard, but given the exceptional circumstances this deck provides, I felt it was necessary to point that out.
So in short on that point, I find that while indeed any deck can control their chances of success against certain matchups through these methods, the nightwalker deck, given the current pool of relevant threats versus its number of relevant answers, clearly has the upper hand on this front.
Normally I don't delete comments but I felt it was needed and I asked JX to remove all content from the article that was questionable. This will not happen again and I apologize.
When you are building a sealed pool with three colors and the means to play them, your splash color should ideally be one that is very splashable. If you are laden with bombs, your ideal should be to play cards that trade early to allow you to play those bombs.
Start with the artifacts always as they are the easist includes and sometimes point the way for later selections. Mind Stone, Mantis, and Warhammer range from solid to backbreaking. (3 cards) Your lands will make you tend to want to run 18 (Expanses when activated reduce the lands you can draw early) considering you are three colors with a sizeable mana curve on your best cards. 17 may be ok. 16 is asking for problems.
Blue is the deepest color: it has Persuasion and three good card drawing spells with some good defensive cards to make sure your bombs come online. You have to consider it the #1 main color. In goes: Persuasion, Sift, 2x Counsel, Evacuation, Aven Windreader, Puppeteer, and possibly Sea Monster or Rootwater. I consider Crab to be pretty junky, but Crab + Teachings is nasty and Crab + Warhammer is solid enough, so maybe Crab too. (8-9 cards)
Green provides your solid beef: Spined Wurm, Kavu Climber, Elven Riders are very solid, but operate at 5 mana. Rootwalla definitely makes it, as do probably Pincers and Archers. Normally I would strongly consider Giant Growth and Naturalize too (but Naturalize less so in your deck given your strong threat ratio). Hurricane perhaps too, but remember your curve is slow and Hurricane is not the best come-from-behind card. I don't like how the curve looks like when your average card-drawing spell costs more than your average creature, so there is a chance another color fits your needs better.
Red has three good removal cards that only need one mana, a decent catch-all in Squee which may or not make the final cut, and nothing else exciting, though there are some other playables. But those playables are not for splashes. (Shock, Pyromancer, Teachings, and maybe Squee only.)
Black is basically the pits for creature quality. Sengir yes, everything else will get beat up. Sengir is double-black though so you probably have to pass completely. It offers some splash options (Deathmark is usually startable, Terror, and Afflict) if you want to get really spicy, but that should be desperate. The Red splash is objectively stronger, but Black may be better if facing an inordinate amount of removal or fatties from the opponent.
What about White? Pacifism and Condemn are on par with the other splashes. Benalish Knight x2, Ghost Warden, and Wild Griffin are solid cards that make up the backbone of successful decks for the bottom portion of the curve, but it peters out after that. Angelic Wall or Heart of Light (better here given your curve, draw, and bombs that can ignore it) aren't horrible, but you hope you don't have to play it.
Basically, you have Blue for sure, Red as a probable splash, and then a choice between a higher curve of Green fat or good White early drops. Green is riskier, but playing White may be the only way to survive. I'd probably opt for the latter. Here goes:
Warhammer, Mind Stone, Mantis, Persuasion, Sift, 2x Counsel, Evacuation, Aven Windreader, Puppeteer, Sea Monster, Crab, Pacifism, Condemn, Benalish Knight x2, Ghost Warden, Wild Griffin, Heart of Light, Shock, Arcane Teachings, Pyromancer, and either Smash/Squee/Angelic Wall/Commando or 18th land as my 23rd card (I lean towards Smash or land myself). This deck has lots of possibilities for sideboarding: + green for better aerial defense, +red for artifact removal, + green for slower decks where you can upgrade the small white dorks to green fatties, and maybe a +black - red switch for the removal decks when 2 of your red spells become bad.
Mishra's Factory: I have been able to draft two or three - but having that many colorless lands can create color screw. I have also played Mishra's Factories in 5Color and so forth. I just don't see them as being all that useful in Prismatic, where colorless is an issue, or Classic where they are just too slow. I could be wrong.
I have found that the pingers just kill the banding guys before combat in white. In theory - or with a Crusade - they are nice, but I have never had problems beating them, and never won when drafting them. Could be just me.
If Hungry Mist had trample, great, but it usually trades with a Drawven Soldier or Onulet. Hungry Mist with Beastial Fury, however....
Transmogrant is actually pretty good, and I just forgot. I was going to cover it in an artifacts section, then with green, then back in an artifacts section - and I just forgot to stick it somewhere. It is one of the few combat "tricks", even if it is not secret.
Mishra's Factory: I have been able to draft two or three - but having that many colorless lands can create color screw. I have also played Mishra's Factories in 5Color and so forth. I just don't see them as being all that useful in Prismatic, where colorless is an issue, or Classic where they are just too slow. I could be wrong.
I have found that the pingers just kill the banding guys before combat in white. In theory - or with a Crusade - they are nice, but I have never had problems beating them, and never won when drafting them. Could be just me.
If Hungry Mist had trample, great, but it usually trades with a Drawven Soldier or Onulet. Hungry Mist with Beastial Fury, however....
Transmogrant is actually pretty good, and I just forgot. I was going to cover it in an artifacts section, then with green, then back in an artifacts section - and I just forgot to stick it somewhere. It is one of the few combat "tricks", even if it is not secret.
In addition to the 4 ledgewalkers and 4 boas, Nightwalker normally runs 4-8 tutors to help it get what it needs. Though the version Sensei won UPDC with only ran 2 tutors, so I suppose that's not entirely necessary. Maybe he's just luckier than I am! :)
I have heard from a number of different sources that Force of Will is a good prismatic card. I would think it would be too unreliable to always have a second blue card in hand at the right moment. I would think that Pact of Negation would be much better in the format.
Well I think this will be the only article ever written about MED* that doesn't mention Mishra's Factory. I'll go ahead and assume this was just an oversight.
So urm, what happens in game 1 if you don't draw a ledgewalker? its only 4 cards out of 60 so the odds of drawing one aren't all that great. Whenever I'v played against the deck it seems very dangerous if it draws the right combinations of ledgewalker + relevant enchantments, but can be vulnerable if the walker stays home or you draw multiple walkers but no pump for them. Is it a case of in some matchups mulliganing into ledgewalker? cause that strategy doesn't seem too hot, I'm genuinely curious here, am I just misunderstanding or is the deck as reliant on its namesake as it seems?
You make it seem as if only the Nightwalker player can adapt. Any player can minimize the risk of being the victim of an opponent through smart play and careful decision making, in fact, I'd be willing to say that every deck out there can control its own level of risk in a given match. I do in fact think I am looking at the deck hard enough. I understand that it is doing well currently because people are spending their time targeting both Saps and Teachings. However, if and when people start running serious enchantment removal, I believe the deck will falter. I again submit that you need to understand both the positive and negative factor of any deck created, and this deck has a huge potential downside- explosive but inconsistent. Maybe I am misinformed, but I still believe my theory is sound. I will admit that Standard is not my format of choice curently, and that this deck really attacks the fact that people fear Saps and Teachings more than it.
Lol! Did you even read what I wrote? Right before I starting talking about damage output, I wrote, "Even ignoring the card advantage angle..." People are playing both stinky and the ashes, and after last weekend they are targetting walkers with hate (ie: the number of martyr harvest decks in last week's spdc), and it still has a solid game because it is actually very resiliant. There are relatively few answers to the questions the deck asks in the format, and there are plenty of solutions to those answers. The Nightwalker player can control the probabilty of facing an effective answer through deckbuilding and play decisions. By doing this, the Nightwalker player mitigates the risk of catastrophic card disadvantage while still taking advantage of the virtual card advantage created by forcing the opponent to play with dead cards, to say nothing of the advantage created by nullifying entire combat phases with the link.
Let's look at mother theresa's matchup vs nightwalker, shall we? You have 4 answers to the Ledgewalker in the sideboard, and 8 to the boa in the maindeck. In the first game, the Nightwalker player can choose to load up the ledgewalker with enchantments, which using the formula above has a card disadvantage probabilty of zero (x vulnerable cards * 0 answers). Your solution is to outrace him, ie hope he doesn't get a link. After boarding, you'll bring in the martyrs to deal with the problem ledgewalker problem, so the Nightwalker's gameplan gets a little more complicated. He'll probably lead with a naked boa (card disadvantage probabilty = 0 as you aren't playing Ichor Slick). If you don't deal with the boa, you have a regenerating attacker/blocker messing with your gameplan. If you tap out to lay an additional threat, he can enchant the boa with a shielding plax, once again creating a question with close to 0 probability of card disadvantage. If you go low on cards in hand, he can deploy a ledgewalker and immediately enchant it, taking the ledgewalker out of martyr range, giving a low chance of card disadvantage. If you play conservatively so that you will have enough cards in hand and a reaction to the plax, he can attempt to outrace you with a few naked boas and a ledgewalker, or even deploy a single enchantment as a pseudo burn spell in an attempt to force your hand. Even though you have the answers, the Nightwalker player still has control over his level of risk.
Again, I think you just aren't looking at the deck hard enough, and letting your preconceived notions of magic theory get in the way of your analysis of it in the format it's played in. I am well aware of the deck's faults; I actually created it months ago and had abandoned it to some of the very causes you listed, in addition to the return of terror and incinerate (thanks, Devin Low!), and its less than 50/50 matchup vs. saps at the time. Sensei is the one who taught me that maybe I had given up on it a little to early. He builds it well and plays it like a champ, and my hat's off to him!
I wonder why you didn't mention the banding creatures white got, they are able to change any boardsituation when both players have a relative big guy. They are also very good with all those creatures with proctection.
Also I feel like you underestimate green a little, I won a draft with an almost monogreen deck that had a few lightning bolts for good measure. Scryb Sprite in combination with the not in detail mentioned manaacceleration in form of Fyndhorn Elves and Natures Law make Shambling Strider something to look out for. Also, no mention of Hungry Mist? The upkeep cost hurts it, but it *is* a big beater. Roots might not work agains flyers, but it can deal with any other problem, like those pump knights... or Dragon Engines.
Also, no love for Ashnod's Transmorgrant? Turning a 2/1 into a 3/2 is good, even better on the few creatures with better bodys.
Overall, I liked the article, it just felt like you skipped over a few points that could easily come back and bite one in MED events.
What you are describing, with effeciency of damage, is an approximation of the Philosophy of Fire- it has nothing to do with card advantage theory. You also make reference to Ledgewalker being "unsolveable" except that it is soolveable by two highly played cards- Martyr and Stinkweed Imp. I have no doubt the deck can perform well, but once people start targeting it with any amount of hate (and I mean any) I feel it will falter. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is identify what the faults are in the decks you have created and agree with them.
Honestly, I think you're just not looking at it hard enough. Ledgewalker builds card advantage in non-traditional ways. If 1/4 of the cards in your deck are dead because they are ineffective against what you are playing, that's massive card advantage for your opponent before anyone ever cast a spell.
Furthermore, loading up a creature with pants is only a problem if that creature is dealt with. This is a much more common issue in regular magic than pauper, where there are fewer answers to "unanswerable" creatures. (Indeed, someone could write an article on the effects of the absence of Wrath in pauper.) You could even put it into an equation: [card disadvantage = (# of vulnerable cards) * (probability of destruction)]. Since the probability of destruction is a function of a relatively small number of answer cards in the format, you could further break this down into [probabilty of destruction = (# of answers * probabilty of facing answer)]. This can further be moderated by packing solutions to their answers, so [probability of facing answers = (probabilty of opponent drawing answer/probability of drawing solution)]. So for you math majors, card disadvantage = ((# of vulnerable cards * ((# of answers * probability of opponent drawing answers)/(probability of drawing solution))).
Anyway, the point is that the Nightwalker pilot controls most of these variables. He can affect the number of answers through his choice of creatures. He can affect the number of vulnerable cards by playing out his cards to draw out answers, or when he knows he has the solution in hand. He can affect the probability of drawing a solution to the specific problem he is likely to face in this matchup through deckbuilding and sideboarding decisions. He can control the risk of card disadvantage, thus making the virtual card advantage gained by the deck through creating dead cards that much more powerful.
Even ignoring the card advantage angle, the cards used are relatively effective as burn cards. If you put an Unholy Strength on a ledgewalker and swing twice before your opponent finds an answer, you've dealt 6 damage for 3 mana and two cards, which is reasonably efficient. If you put a vampiric link on it, you get a 12 point life swing for 4 mana and 3 cards, which is pretty incredible in pauper.
Anyway, Nightwalker was not just thrown together by smushing a bunch of randomly powerful cards into a 75 card list. It is a carefully crafted deck that uses attributes unique to pauper to create a powerful metagame threat that just happens to be a lot of fun to play as well. In addition playing Nightwalker is an experience that you can't really have success with outside of the pauper format. Sensei has done a lot of work on it, and pilots it amazingly well. Kudos to him for another finals appearance last night!
Nice article. I especially like how your list of what a Standard deck must do in the format includes almost everything that any deck must do, ever, in any format. ;)
Hopefully we see MTCtW tearing up the tourney tables at a Standard event soon!
Personal attacks aside, I understand your position fully and even agree with you on terms that indeed, auras are very taboo when considering card advantage and your viewpoint on opinions. Opinions are fine. Opinions that are unfounded are not. You obviously have reason for believing what you do, so thats all well and good. Like I said previously however, I need to defend something that I've put work into.
Back to your evaluation of the deck, I'm not fool enough to believe that a single creature is enough to win games. Thats why I build other options. We refer to the deck as 'the ledgewalker deck', while in reality I have a myriad of outs to any number of problems that might be presented to me; up to and not excluding Stinkweed Imp and Martyr of Ashes.
I would like to thank you again for this little bit of air time you are providing me, but I must again stress that I am fully aware of the deck's weaknesses and I am contractually obligated due to personal error I suppose to defend my creation by pointing out that I have answers to those weaknesses as well; a requirement for any serious competitive deck, as I am sure you cannot disagree.
Got a tournament to catch, so I'll leave it at that for now. I respect your opinions and I apologize but I must stress I mean no agression towards you. I only present my opinions as we say using the best knowledge available to me. I thank you for doing the same in a friendly thoughtful environment.
I have done the research- card advantage theory. I never said the Ledgewalker itself was jank, but rather the way the deck is constructed. I also do not follow where your defintion of jank comes from- to me, Jank is a pile of cards that should not work and sometimes does (look at pervious decks known as PT Jank, PT Junk, both highly successful). The idea of loading up a creature with Aura's is perhaps one of the first "taboos" you learn in Magic- the prospect for card disadvantage is so incredibly great that it just is not worth it. Having a deck where 16 (over 25%) of the cards are totally reliant on having another card (comprising a little under 20% of the deck) seems to be very risky. Considering that a Ledgewalker, no matter how many auras, is dead to a Stinkweed Imp and a naked one is dead to Martyr, two highly played cards, tells me that this deck while potentially explosive, is jank. The fact that the cards are related to each other does not really mean anything, as the nature of the deck (creature and creature auras) requires said connection.
Part of being a professional writer, as you say, is to have opinions. Am I supposed to believe that because this deck wins some tournaments that it is automatically good in terms of card advantage theory? I have done the research, and I am offering my opinions based upon said research- if people pack hate for it, then the deck most liekly will falter.
And what do you care what I call it? If the deck, as you say, is good, then what should it matter that I feel it is Jank? It is my opinion.
And where do you have the qualification to identify yourself as "Sensei?"
I was pretty peeved at your definition of the ledgewalker deck as being 'jank'. Jank is when a deck possesses cards that are not related to each other synergistically or have better alternatives. Being that I created the deck, I can say full well that no card in current versions of the ledgewalker deck, or 'nightwalker' have such properties.
If you want to present yourself as a professional writer and be considered as such, I would kindly suggest you do your research and fully understand topics that you talk about (the nightwalker deck) instead of relying on bias or unfounded opinion.
The rest of the article was extremely well constructed, and I don't wish to come off as offensive, I however feel I need to at least speak up for something that I put work into. Thanks for the mention though. =D
Not to somehow diminish you guys' conversation but can we please keep the long drawn out comments that take like 5 min to read each to the forums? I mean feel free to post the link when you make a thread on the forum but these comments are just ridiculus.
Thank you :P
BTW, Spikey his name: 53N531 = Sensei if you didn't catch that lol
Actually, I was thinking of paper 5Color, which is closer to Prismatic with MED than the old Prismatic. I have seen a lot of Force of Wills played in paper 5Color, but rarely seen Pact of Negation.
Time will tell.
We are talking prismatic, right? Flash Hulk has been neutered, so I don't know how many turn 2-4 combo kills there are out there, also there is no guarantee that you will have a second blue card in your hand to pitch.
I just can't wrap my mind around why this would be good in prismatic, I have never played with one before ... and it looks like you tried to answer my question using vintage-legacy formats as examples. I have no doubt of its power there.
Thanks for any help : )
& I enjoyed your article
If an opponent is going off on turn two, Force of Will can stop that - Pact of Negation cannot (okay, technically it can, but you are going to have some problems paying at the start of turn three.) You can also hard cast Force of Will later in the game.
Currently, many Vintage combo decks play both. Control decks will probably play both - but I would still prefer FoW over a Pact any day.
Generally, the Ledgewalker is indeed the most effective path to victory given a random matchup in the current metagame. However, with 15 maindeck creatures and 4 tutors that search 6 cards deep, I find that recently I have had relatively little problems finding the correct creature for the situation as it is needed. Surely, with only 19 total card effects that could result in a resolved creature, it is statistically less likely to draw a threat in its opening hand than say, any aggro deck in the format not named Blue Beats, however once the game begins Ledgewalker actually has the statistical advantage over the majority of aggro decks.
I don't think I've ever intentionally mulliganed out of a playable hand in order to get a ledgewalker. As you've said, the odds are highly out of my favour, and its usually irrelevant all things considered. I think however if more people would take the time to play the deck they would find that you are actually rarely strapped for a creature to cast or two. I think the largest problem with the deck is maintaining pressure in the early game. It is common for your opponent to be able to handle your one or two threats during the first four turns of the game, especially if your opponent is running counterspells, leaving you with an extreme statistical disadvantage when compared to almost any other deck in the format if placed in that same situation, due to the nature of the beast. This is largely unavoidable pre-sideboard, although things get quite a bit more favourable afterwards with recursion and additional creatures coming in as necessary.
As for an opening hand with two ledgewalkers and no enchants. I for one sir welcome those hands. That means I am guaranteed 2 chances at starting a chain, and with 16 enchantments maindeck plus ripple and cantrip effects, I am relatively never strapped for pump.
Apologies about the multiple posts, the system was giving me an error and I wasn't aware that it was still posting. Feel free to take some down.
Sorry for the delay in reply gentlemen, work and all calling.
I think the depth to which Khiareq and I have at least attempted to explain the thought processes that went through our brains as the deck was created should at least sufficiently defend the decks credibility, at least for my conscience.
A good deal of the topics that were discussed while I was gone are just rehashes of things that I covered last night, so feel free to carefully reread everyones posts at your leisure dear reader. There were however a few new topics so I'll go over those.
I was relatively intrigued by Khiareq's explanation of how the deck acquires virtual card advantage. I had never really thought of the gameplan like that, but it makes sense. A dead card in your hand is as if the card does not exist, so depending on how strict of a definition of card advantage you want to uphold, I could easily see it being construed as such.
As far as adaptation, yeah its pretty elementary to realize that a deck has full control over how it improves or lowers its chances of victory through both maindeck and sideboard choices, but I think there is something to be said for the number of relevant counters that any one deck can present in a given situation to combat any particular weakness. In most decks, as you point out in your article, you have to have a serious consideration for at least 3 major archetypes as well as what the politically correct professionals in this competetive game like to refer to rogue decks. This means that not only is your maindeck theoretically altered before your games begin to combat those opponents, but your 15 cards in your sideboard are theoretically divided up amongst those weaknesses you are likely to incur versus any one of those anticipated decks.
Now, in this nightwalker deck in particular, you don't really have that restriction. Instead of preparing for 3 major archetypes, you prepare for 3 major cards (an approximation, of course). So you have 15 slots to prepare for an absolute maximum of 12 anticipated viable threats to your gameplan given this isolated metaphor. Not only are probabilities already in your numerical favour, but there are two additional factors to consider. One, is that the likihood of a given deck playing all of the relevant threats to your decks gameplan all at once are incredibly low. So low in fact that I would go so far as to say that no deck actually plays all of these relevant threats together, further increasing your chances of having a relevant answer to any given relevant threat.
Additionally, given the known major viable threats to the decks gameplan, a number of cards that I commonly allocate to answer these questions in fact answer more than one problem at once. This is obviously a relevant prospect in any sideboard, but given the exceptional circumstances this deck provides, I felt it was necessary to point that out.
So in short on that point, I find that while indeed any deck can control their chances of success against certain matchups through these methods, the nightwalker deck, given the current pool of relevant threats versus its number of relevant answers, clearly has the upper hand on this front.
you 2 are funny dudes. for the record i agree walker is "jank" but i play castleraptors maindeck so i obviously have no clue what im doing
Completely understand your reasoning and agree with your decision. For whatever that's worth.
I'd probably have gone with UGR, ability to sideboard into UGB.
Normally I don't delete comments but I felt it was needed and I asked JX to remove all content from the article that was questionable. This will not happen again and I apologize.
When you are building a sealed pool with three colors and the means to play them, your splash color should ideally be one that is very splashable. If you are laden with bombs, your ideal should be to play cards that trade early to allow you to play those bombs.
Start with the artifacts always as they are the easist includes and sometimes point the way for later selections. Mind Stone, Mantis, and Warhammer range from solid to backbreaking. (3 cards) Your lands will make you tend to want to run 18 (Expanses when activated reduce the lands you can draw early) considering you are three colors with a sizeable mana curve on your best cards. 17 may be ok. 16 is asking for problems.
Blue is the deepest color: it has Persuasion and three good card drawing spells with some good defensive cards to make sure your bombs come online. You have to consider it the #1 main color. In goes: Persuasion, Sift, 2x Counsel, Evacuation, Aven Windreader, Puppeteer, and possibly Sea Monster or Rootwater. I consider Crab to be pretty junky, but Crab + Teachings is nasty and Crab + Warhammer is solid enough, so maybe Crab too. (8-9 cards)
Green provides your solid beef: Spined Wurm, Kavu Climber, Elven Riders are very solid, but operate at 5 mana. Rootwalla definitely makes it, as do probably Pincers and Archers. Normally I would strongly consider Giant Growth and Naturalize too (but Naturalize less so in your deck given your strong threat ratio). Hurricane perhaps too, but remember your curve is slow and Hurricane is not the best come-from-behind card. I don't like how the curve looks like when your average card-drawing spell costs more than your average creature, so there is a chance another color fits your needs better.
Red has three good removal cards that only need one mana, a decent catch-all in Squee which may or not make the final cut, and nothing else exciting, though there are some other playables. But those playables are not for splashes. (Shock, Pyromancer, Teachings, and maybe Squee only.)
Black is basically the pits for creature quality. Sengir yes, everything else will get beat up. Sengir is double-black though so you probably have to pass completely. It offers some splash options (Deathmark is usually startable, Terror, and Afflict) if you want to get really spicy, but that should be desperate. The Red splash is objectively stronger, but Black may be better if facing an inordinate amount of removal or fatties from the opponent.
What about White? Pacifism and Condemn are on par with the other splashes. Benalish Knight x2, Ghost Warden, and Wild Griffin are solid cards that make up the backbone of successful decks for the bottom portion of the curve, but it peters out after that. Angelic Wall or Heart of Light (better here given your curve, draw, and bombs that can ignore it) aren't horrible, but you hope you don't have to play it.
Basically, you have Blue for sure, Red as a probable splash, and then a choice between a higher curve of Green fat or good White early drops. Green is riskier, but playing White may be the only way to survive. I'd probably opt for the latter. Here goes:
Warhammer, Mind Stone, Mantis, Persuasion, Sift, 2x Counsel, Evacuation, Aven Windreader, Puppeteer, Sea Monster, Crab, Pacifism, Condemn, Benalish Knight x2, Ghost Warden, Wild Griffin, Heart of Light, Shock, Arcane Teachings, Pyromancer, and either Smash/Squee/Angelic Wall/Commando or 18th land as my 23rd card (I lean towards Smash or land myself). This deck has lots of possibilities for sideboarding: + green for better aerial defense, +red for artifact removal, + green for slower decks where you can upgrade the small white dorks to green fatties, and maybe a +black - red switch for the removal decks when 2 of your red spells become bad.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for the feedback:
Mishra's Factory: I have been able to draft two or three - but having that many colorless lands can create color screw. I have also played Mishra's Factories in 5Color and so forth. I just don't see them as being all that useful in Prismatic, where colorless is an issue, or Classic where they are just too slow. I could be wrong.
I have found that the pingers just kill the banding guys before combat in white. In theory - or with a Crusade - they are nice, but I have never had problems beating them, and never won when drafting them. Could be just me.
If Hungry Mist had trample, great, but it usually trades with a Drawven Soldier or Onulet. Hungry Mist with Beastial Fury, however....
Transmogrant is actually pretty good, and I just forgot. I was going to cover it in an artifacts section, then with green, then back in an artifacts section - and I just forgot to stick it somewhere. It is one of the few combat "tricks", even if it is not secret.
Thanks for the feedback:
Mishra's Factory: I have been able to draft two or three - but having that many colorless lands can create color screw. I have also played Mishra's Factories in 5Color and so forth. I just don't see them as being all that useful in Prismatic, where colorless is an issue, or Classic where they are just too slow. I could be wrong.
I have found that the pingers just kill the banding guys before combat in white. In theory - or with a Crusade - they are nice, but I have never had problems beating them, and never won when drafting them. Could be just me.
If Hungry Mist had trample, great, but it usually trades with a Drawven Soldier or Onulet. Hungry Mist with Beastial Fury, however....
Transmogrant is actually pretty good, and I just forgot. I was going to cover it in an artifacts section, then with green, then back in an artifacts section - and I just forgot to stick it somewhere. It is one of the few combat "tricks", even if it is not secret.
In addition to the 4 ledgewalkers and 4 boas, Nightwalker normally runs 4-8 tutors to help it get what it needs. Though the version Sensei won UPDC with only ran 2 tutors, so I suppose that's not entirely necessary. Maybe he's just luckier than I am! :)
I have heard from a number of different sources that Force of Will is a good prismatic card. I would think it would be too unreliable to always have a second blue card in hand at the right moment. I would think that Pact of Negation would be much better in the format.
Well I think this will be the only article ever written about MED* that doesn't mention Mishra's Factory. I'll go ahead and assume this was just an oversight.
*PDC articles don't count.
So urm, what happens in game 1 if you don't draw a ledgewalker? its only 4 cards out of 60 so the odds of drawing one aren't all that great. Whenever I'v played against the deck it seems very dangerous if it draws the right combinations of ledgewalker + relevant enchantments, but can be vulnerable if the walker stays home or you draw multiple walkers but no pump for them. Is it a case of in some matchups mulliganing into ledgewalker? cause that strategy doesn't seem too hot, I'm genuinely curious here, am I just misunderstanding or is the deck as reliant on its namesake as it seems?
You make it seem as if only the Nightwalker player can adapt. Any player can minimize the risk of being the victim of an opponent through smart play and careful decision making, in fact, I'd be willing to say that every deck out there can control its own level of risk in a given match. I do in fact think I am looking at the deck hard enough. I understand that it is doing well currently because people are spending their time targeting both Saps and Teachings. However, if and when people start running serious enchantment removal, I believe the deck will falter. I again submit that you need to understand both the positive and negative factor of any deck created, and this deck has a huge potential downside- explosive but inconsistent. Maybe I am misinformed, but I still believe my theory is sound. I will admit that Standard is not my format of choice curently, and that this deck really attacks the fact that people fear Saps and Teachings more than it.
-Alex
Lol! Did you even read what I wrote? Right before I starting talking about damage output, I wrote, "Even ignoring the card advantage angle..." People are playing both stinky and the ashes, and after last weekend they are targetting walkers with hate (ie: the number of martyr harvest decks in last week's spdc), and it still has a solid game because it is actually very resiliant. There are relatively few answers to the questions the deck asks in the format, and there are plenty of solutions to those answers. The Nightwalker player can control the probabilty of facing an effective answer through deckbuilding and play decisions. By doing this, the Nightwalker player mitigates the risk of catastrophic card disadvantage while still taking advantage of the virtual card advantage created by forcing the opponent to play with dead cards, to say nothing of the advantage created by nullifying entire combat phases with the link.
Let's look at mother theresa's matchup vs nightwalker, shall we? You have 4 answers to the Ledgewalker in the sideboard, and 8 to the boa in the maindeck. In the first game, the Nightwalker player can choose to load up the ledgewalker with enchantments, which using the formula above has a card disadvantage probabilty of zero (x vulnerable cards * 0 answers). Your solution is to outrace him, ie hope he doesn't get a link. After boarding, you'll bring in the martyrs to deal with the problem ledgewalker problem, so the Nightwalker's gameplan gets a little more complicated. He'll probably lead with a naked boa (card disadvantage probabilty = 0 as you aren't playing Ichor Slick). If you don't deal with the boa, you have a regenerating attacker/blocker messing with your gameplan. If you tap out to lay an additional threat, he can enchant the boa with a shielding plax, once again creating a question with close to 0 probability of card disadvantage. If you go low on cards in hand, he can deploy a ledgewalker and immediately enchant it, taking the ledgewalker out of martyr range, giving a low chance of card disadvantage. If you play conservatively so that you will have enough cards in hand and a reaction to the plax, he can attempt to outrace you with a few naked boas and a ledgewalker, or even deploy a single enchantment as a pseudo burn spell in an attempt to force your hand. Even though you have the answers, the Nightwalker player still has control over his level of risk.
Again, I think you just aren't looking at the deck hard enough, and letting your preconceived notions of magic theory get in the way of your analysis of it in the format it's played in. I am well aware of the deck's faults; I actually created it months ago and had abandoned it to some of the very causes you listed, in addition to the return of terror and incinerate (thanks, Devin Low!), and its less than 50/50 matchup vs. saps at the time. Sensei is the one who taught me that maybe I had given up on it a little to early. He builds it well and plays it like a champ, and my hat's off to him!
I wonder why you didn't mention the banding creatures white got, they are able to change any boardsituation when both players have a relative big guy. They are also very good with all those creatures with proctection.
Also I feel like you underestimate green a little, I won a draft with an almost monogreen deck that had a few lightning bolts for good measure. Scryb Sprite in combination with the not in detail mentioned manaacceleration in form of Fyndhorn Elves and Natures Law make Shambling Strider something to look out for. Also, no mention of Hungry Mist? The upkeep cost hurts it, but it *is* a big beater. Roots might not work agains flyers, but it can deal with any other problem, like those pump knights... or Dragon Engines.
Also, no love for Ashnod's Transmorgrant? Turning a 2/1 into a 3/2 is good, even better on the few creatures with better bodys.
Overall, I liked the article, it just felt like you skipped over a few points that could easily come back and bite one in MED events.
What you are describing, with effeciency of damage, is an approximation of the Philosophy of Fire- it has nothing to do with card advantage theory. You also make reference to Ledgewalker being "unsolveable" except that it is soolveable by two highly played cards- Martyr and Stinkweed Imp. I have no doubt the deck can perform well, but once people start targeting it with any amount of hate (and I mean any) I feel it will falter. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is identify what the faults are in the decks you have created and agree with them.
-ALex
Honestly, I think you're just not looking at it hard enough. Ledgewalker builds card advantage in non-traditional ways. If 1/4 of the cards in your deck are dead because they are ineffective against what you are playing, that's massive card advantage for your opponent before anyone ever cast a spell.
Furthermore, loading up a creature with pants is only a problem if that creature is dealt with. This is a much more common issue in regular magic than pauper, where there are fewer answers to "unanswerable" creatures. (Indeed, someone could write an article on the effects of the absence of Wrath in pauper.) You could even put it into an equation: [card disadvantage = (# of vulnerable cards) * (probability of destruction)]. Since the probability of destruction is a function of a relatively small number of answer cards in the format, you could further break this down into [probabilty of destruction = (# of answers * probabilty of facing answer)]. This can further be moderated by packing solutions to their answers, so [probability of facing answers = (probabilty of opponent drawing answer/probability of drawing solution)]. So for you math majors, card disadvantage = ((# of vulnerable cards * ((# of answers * probability of opponent drawing answers)/(probability of drawing solution))).
Anyway, the point is that the Nightwalker pilot controls most of these variables. He can affect the number of answers through his choice of creatures. He can affect the number of vulnerable cards by playing out his cards to draw out answers, or when he knows he has the solution in hand. He can affect the probability of drawing a solution to the specific problem he is likely to face in this matchup through deckbuilding and sideboarding decisions. He can control the risk of card disadvantage, thus making the virtual card advantage gained by the deck through creating dead cards that much more powerful.
Even ignoring the card advantage angle, the cards used are relatively effective as burn cards. If you put an Unholy Strength on a ledgewalker and swing twice before your opponent finds an answer, you've dealt 6 damage for 3 mana and two cards, which is reasonably efficient. If you put a vampiric link on it, you get a 12 point life swing for 4 mana and 3 cards, which is pretty incredible in pauper.
Anyway, Nightwalker was not just thrown together by smushing a bunch of randomly powerful cards into a 75 card list. It is a carefully crafted deck that uses attributes unique to pauper to create a powerful metagame threat that just happens to be a lot of fun to play as well. In addition playing Nightwalker is an experience that you can't really have success with outside of the pauper format. Sensei has done a lot of work on it, and pilots it amazingly well. Kudos to him for another finals appearance last night!
Nice article. I especially like how your list of what a Standard deck must do in the format includes almost everything that any deck must do, ever, in any format. ;)
Hopefully we see MTCtW tearing up the tourney tables at a Standard event soon!
Personal attacks aside, I understand your position fully and even agree with you on terms that indeed, auras are very taboo when considering card advantage and your viewpoint on opinions. Opinions are fine. Opinions that are unfounded are not. You obviously have reason for believing what you do, so thats all well and good. Like I said previously however, I need to defend something that I've put work into.
Back to your evaluation of the deck, I'm not fool enough to believe that a single creature is enough to win games. Thats why I build other options. We refer to the deck as 'the ledgewalker deck', while in reality I have a myriad of outs to any number of problems that might be presented to me; up to and not excluding Stinkweed Imp and Martyr of Ashes.
I would like to thank you again for this little bit of air time you are providing me, but I must again stress that I am fully aware of the deck's weaknesses and I am contractually obligated due to personal error I suppose to defend my creation by pointing out that I have answers to those weaknesses as well; a requirement for any serious competitive deck, as I am sure you cannot disagree.
Got a tournament to catch, so I'll leave it at that for now. I respect your opinions and I apologize but I must stress I mean no agression towards you. I only present my opinions as we say using the best knowledge available to me. I thank you for doing the same in a friendly thoughtful environment.
-- Sensei
I have done the research- card advantage theory. I never said the Ledgewalker itself was jank, but rather the way the deck is constructed. I also do not follow where your defintion of jank comes from- to me, Jank is a pile of cards that should not work and sometimes does (look at pervious decks known as PT Jank, PT Junk, both highly successful). The idea of loading up a creature with Aura's is perhaps one of the first "taboos" you learn in Magic- the prospect for card disadvantage is so incredibly great that it just is not worth it. Having a deck where 16 (over 25%) of the cards are totally reliant on having another card (comprising a little under 20% of the deck) seems to be very risky. Considering that a Ledgewalker, no matter how many auras, is dead to a Stinkweed Imp and a naked one is dead to Martyr, two highly played cards, tells me that this deck while potentially explosive, is jank. The fact that the cards are related to each other does not really mean anything, as the nature of the deck (creature and creature auras) requires said connection.
Part of being a professional writer, as you say, is to have opinions. Am I supposed to believe that because this deck wins some tournaments that it is automatically good in terms of card advantage theory? I have done the research, and I am offering my opinions based upon said research- if people pack hate for it, then the deck most liekly will falter.
And what do you care what I call it? If the deck, as you say, is good, then what should it matter that I feel it is Jank? It is my opinion.
And where do you have the qualification to identify yourself as "Sensei?"
-Alex
I was pretty peeved at your definition of the ledgewalker deck as being 'jank'. Jank is when a deck possesses cards that are not related to each other synergistically or have better alternatives. Being that I created the deck, I can say full well that no card in current versions of the ledgewalker deck, or 'nightwalker' have such properties.
If you want to present yourself as a professional writer and be considered as such, I would kindly suggest you do your research and fully understand topics that you talk about (the nightwalker deck) instead of relying on bias or unfounded opinion.
The rest of the article was extremely well constructed, and I don't wish to come off as offensive, I however feel I need to at least speak up for something that I put work into. Thanks for the mention though. =D
-- Sensei