Chris,
For the mirror, I would add some combination of Monastery Mentor, Dismember, and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy. The whole point of having Moats in your deck is that you don't need to run Wraths. Mentor, Jace and Dismember just have a lot more utility than Supreme Verdict. Three mana is the rate for an unconditional sweeper in this format, and even at three mana, Toxic Deluge, Anger of the Gods, and Radiant Flames aren't all that exciting.
Brian didn't run any Verdicts at EE3, for what it's worth. He had a second lifelinker, Seeker of the Way, to take the sting out aggressive decks.
Dept. of Corrections: Brian actually split first with teammate Matt Murray, not finish second as written in the article above.
Yeah, but I just don't think that this potential suspicion one might have is a good enough reason to complicate the event rules. And most importantly, it would give your deck an advantage vs certain types of decks (you can sideboard in Bribery or Acquire vs the deck where it's actually good, whereas that deck maybe can't sideboard in hate cards against you.) Same would be true with other "look at the opponent's library" cards if they were allowed. Praetor's Grasp, for example, is an excellent card against some combo decks, which again, gives you an actual sideboard advantage over those decks. To circumvent that advantage while still giving you the option to check whether your opponent is cheating, there could be a rule that you can only sideboard those cards to look at the opponents' libraries and then fail to choose any card, but again, I think this is too "un-elegant" of a rule, and I don't think current Tribal situation warrants such measures, especially because cheaters are always at a certain risk of being caught anyway. But I wouldn't really protest that fail-to-choose option if it was implemented. It could deterr some potential cheaters just knowing that their opp can check their library after sideboarding.
Let's say there's 18 players I trust are playing by the rules and 1 player I do not trust.
I'm not going to maindeck Bribery (which you've argued quite well isn't that great) in order to catch 1/19 players of cheating. If it was allowed in SB then I can bring it in versus someone I'm suspicious of. If I catch him cheating, then we've cleaned up the event. If I don't, at least I get something of value even though it may or may not be a great use of 5 mana.
The problem with those cards is that they are so random and unreliable. Most decks don't even play artifacts, and if your goal is to snatch a Sword, then you are much better of playing it yourself rather than pay 5 mana and hope that your opponent has it in the deck. Even if you knew each of your opponent is playing Swords, the card would be bad.
Acquire is completely unplayable in Tribal IMO.
Bribery is of course better, but it is still too unreliable. The last thing you want to do on turn 5 vs elves or goblins is to cast a 5 mana spell that puts a 2/2 into play. And ironically, the type of deck with the most broken creatures is reanimator, which is too fast for Bribery. Maybe it could be OK versus some slower control decks, but even then, you wouldnt be much worse of by just playing expensive creature yourself. Overall there are lots of decks against which Bribery would be bad, some where it would be OK (but not better than just playing 5cc creature yourself) and very few where it would be actually very good.
(BTW, as for allowing them in sideboards, I just don't see a good reason)
I can say with confidence that Praetor's Grasp has never been in a DotA champion spotlight which is proving my point, these cards are not good enough to maindeck if you want to win the event.
Allowing them in sideboards, however, has little costs as a cheating deterrent.
Deep Analysis is probably the most powerful card draw spell in pauper, or a close second to Mulldrifter. Its the only draw 4. If the deck operated more at instant speed I could see Whispers taking its place. but your best removal is all sorcery speed. If you really hate the life cost on it that much I would suggest a mysteries of the deep, and a fourth think twice.
They are certainly not tier 1 killers but that has to with the kind of card they represent more than whether they are individually good or bad. 3UU means they belong mostly in a heavy blue deck along side heavy blue tribes. This in turn reduces the amount of decks they will be in that reach a top 8 position and to get into the top 100 of this event requires (usually) some repeat performances. Not seeing them there does not disqualify them from being awesome in UU tribes. The problem is those tribes generally suck or make the Bribery/Acquisition theme redundant. So maybe that is what you mean by them not being great.
I was just talking about how this scout deck has many advantages in the underdog or even in the pure or regular formats. And combining these elements with Scapeshift gives it a non-interactive playing style. Nothing more, nothing less.
I fully support a ban decision about Scapeshift to prevent this kind of non-interactive win condition for the health of the tribal format.
Actuall Scouts deck is quite good against aggro decks with suicidal scouts, board sweepers and fog effects. And now, there is even a much better "fog" option around to replace Moment's Peace in this deck to increase its power level in a different way.
I also support the notion to ban or restrict Scapeshift.
It certainly dances around most metagame answers, but it would seem to have weaknesses too: faster combo, Emrakul, Scepter/Chant, the white name-a-card enchantment, counterspells, etc.
I strongly agree with banning Scapeshift (everywhere, not just in sub-formats). The deck is unfair and just too tough to prepare for in a 20-creature format without sideboards.
With Scouts up to something like 17-1 in recent weeks, including two regular events, would it be prudent to either move them out of Underdog or ban Valakut or Scapeshift in that sub-format?
Chris,
For the mirror, I would add some combination of Monastery Mentor, Dismember, and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy. The whole point of having Moats in your deck is that you don't need to run Wraths. Mentor, Jace and Dismember just have a lot more utility than Supreme Verdict. Three mana is the rate for an unconditional sweeper in this format, and even at three mana, Toxic Deluge, Anger of the Gods, and Radiant Flames aren't all that exciting.
Brian didn't run any Verdicts at EE3, for what it's worth. He had a second lifelinker, Seeker of the Way, to take the sting out aggressive decks.
Dept. of Corrections: Brian actually split first with teammate Matt Murray, not finish second as written in the article above.
Yeah, but I just don't think that this potential suspicion one might have is a good enough reason to complicate the event rules. And most importantly, it would give your deck an advantage vs certain types of decks (you can sideboard in Bribery or Acquire vs the deck where it's actually good, whereas that deck maybe can't sideboard in hate cards against you.) Same would be true with other "look at the opponent's library" cards if they were allowed. Praetor's Grasp, for example, is an excellent card against some combo decks, which again, gives you an actual sideboard advantage over those decks. To circumvent that advantage while still giving you the option to check whether your opponent is cheating, there could be a rule that you can only sideboard those cards to look at the opponents' libraries and then fail to choose any card, but again, I think this is too "un-elegant" of a rule, and I don't think current Tribal situation warrants such measures, especially because cheaters are always at a certain risk of being caught anyway. But I wouldn't really protest that fail-to-choose option if it was implemented. It could deterr some potential cheaters just knowing that their opp can check their library after sideboarding.
Let's say there's 18 players I trust are playing by the rules and 1 player I do not trust.
I'm not going to maindeck Bribery (which you've argued quite well isn't that great) in order to catch 1/19 players of cheating. If it was allowed in SB then I can bring it in versus someone I'm suspicious of. If I catch him cheating, then we've cleaned up the event. If I don't, at least I get something of value even though it may or may not be a great use of 5 mana.
The problem with those cards is that they are so random and unreliable. Most decks don't even play artifacts, and if your goal is to snatch a Sword, then you are much better of playing it yourself rather than pay 5 mana and hope that your opponent has it in the deck. Even if you knew each of your opponent is playing Swords, the card would be bad.
Acquire is completely unplayable in Tribal IMO.
Bribery is of course better, but it is still too unreliable. The last thing you want to do on turn 5 vs elves or goblins is to cast a 5 mana spell that puts a 2/2 into play. And ironically, the type of deck with the most broken creatures is reanimator, which is too fast for Bribery. Maybe it could be OK versus some slower control decks, but even then, you wouldnt be much worse of by just playing expensive creature yourself. Overall there are lots of decks against which Bribery would be bad, some where it would be OK (but not better than just playing 5cc creature yourself) and very few where it would be actually very good.
(BTW, as for allowing them in sideboards, I just don't see a good reason)
Forget the sideboard. It is never going to fly.
I can say with confidence that Praetor's Grasp has never been in a DotA champion spotlight which is proving my point, these cards are not good enough to maindeck if you want to win the event.
Allowing them in sideboards, however, has little costs as a cheating deterrent.
Deep Analysis is probably the most powerful card draw spell in pauper, or a close second to Mulldrifter. Its the only draw 4. If the deck operated more at instant speed I could see Whispers taking its place. but your best removal is all sorcery speed. If you really hate the life cost on it that much I would suggest a mysteries of the deep, and a fourth think twice.
You can also try Praetor's Grasp for black color side
They are certainly not tier 1 killers but that has to with the kind of card they represent more than whether they are individually good or bad. 3UU means they belong mostly in a heavy blue deck along side heavy blue tribes. This in turn reduces the amount of decks they will be in that reach a top 8 position and to get into the top 100 of this event requires (usually) some repeat performances. Not seeing them there does not disqualify them from being awesome in UU tribes. The problem is those tribes generally suck or make the Bribery/Acquisition theme redundant. So maybe that is what you mean by them not being great.
If you're not careful I'll accept that as a challenge.
I've read every DotA this year and I don't recall seeing a single Bribery or Acquire in Kuma's champion spotlight.
Bribery and Acquire no good? I beg to differ with all the various swords and midrange creatures around.
Well the cards aren't good. I suggested them for SB for when game one it looks liked there's no way your opponent had 20 of the same tribe.
Great coverage of the meta - but where is Delver? Grixis or UR version.
I was just talking about how this scout deck has many advantages in the underdog or even in the pure or regular formats. And combining these elements with Scapeshift gives it a non-interactive playing style. Nothing more, nothing less.
I fully support a ban decision about Scapeshift to prevent this kind of non-interactive win condition for the health of the tribal format.
Why can't the metagame go away from Aggro then? I can see Underdog having a tougher time with controlling options, but Regular has tools.
Actuall Scouts deck is quite good against aggro decks with suicidal scouts, board sweepers and fog effects. And now, there is even a much better "fog" option around to replace Moment's Peace in this deck to increase its power level in a different way.
I also support the notion to ban or restrict Scapeshift.
It certainly dances around most metagame answers, but it would seem to have weaknesses too: faster combo, Emrakul, Scepter/Chant, the white name-a-card enchantment, counterspells, etc.
I strongly agree with banning Scapeshift (everywhere, not just in sub-formats). The deck is unfair and just too tough to prepare for in a 20-creature format without sideboards.
Scapeshift to me would be the logical ban, Valakut sees some play elsewhere as a value land.
With Scouts up to something like 17-1 in recent weeks, including two regular events, would it be prudent to either move them out of Underdog or ban Valakut or Scapeshift in that sub-format?
Short answer: win a MOCS qualifier. More detail in the link in the story.
How does one get an MOCS promo? Is there an info hub where all that is made clear?
That was harsh. Did you seriously quit MTGO for real this time?
If you want them, maindeck them.