JXClaytor's picture
By: JXClaytor, Joshua Claytor
Sep 11 2007 1:49pm
Login to post comments

PDC is an all player run format on Magic Online. It consists of competitive games using exclusively commons cards. Games can be found in the "/join pdc" room and events can be found on the Magic Online official message boards. For more information please visit paupermagic.com

PDC Standard is a format that is currently defined by creature combat. Currently, the format has one huge limiting factor: Saps. This deck is aggro-combo, pumping out hordes of tokens and then using a mass pump effect, such as that on Pallid Mycoderm to pull off an Overrun style kill. This deck is fast and redundant. Because of this, any standard deck has to be able to handle creatures on the first few turns of the game; doing this shuts off Saps main offensive source of power. However, doing this tends to weaken the deck against the other dominant deck of the format: Mystical Teachings based control. Although these decks come in many different varieties, their main course of win is the same: card advantage through a Teachings engine. Recently, Orzhov strategies using Momentary Blink and Blightspeaker to reuse and abuse Blind Hunter and Aven Riftwatcher have jumped into the metagame. The final major player is a gap deck; with decent to good matchups against both of these decks, and that is an Izzet special that combines card advantage with removal and large creatures, usually referred to as Steam Machine. This format will exist until the Lorwyn online release, so understanding this triad is important. Here are some lists for reference: 

4 Llanowar Elves
4 Essence Warden
4 Selesnya Evangel
4 Veteran Armorer
4 Pallid Mycoderm
4 Fists of Ironwood
4 Scatter the Seeds
4 Sprout Swarm
4 Kjeldoran War Cry
3 Marshaling Cry
8 Snow-Covered Forest
7 Snow-Covered Plains
4 Selesnya Sanctuary
2 Terramorphic Expanse


4 Lumithread Field
4 Wrap in Vigor
4 Sunlance
3 Faith's Fetters

Pallid Mycoderm

4 Blind Hunter
4 Phyrexian Rager
4 Shrieking Grotesque
4 Aven Riftwatcher
3 Ravenous Rats
3 Stinkweed Imp
4 Faith's Fetters
4 Last Gasp
4 Momentary Blink
3 Grim Harvest
1 Dimir Aqueduct
1 Island
3 Orzhov Basilica
7 Plains
7 Swamp
4 Terramorphic Expanse

3 Castigate
2 Leave No Trace
4 Shred Memory
3 Terror
3 Dawn Charm
Blind Hunter
1 Dimir Aqueduct
2 Muddle the Mixture
4 Remove Soul
12 Snow-Covered Island
4 Snow-Covered Mountain
4 Snow-Covered Swamp
1 Terror
4 Cancel
4 Errant Ephemeron
1 Grim Harvest
2 Logic Knot
4 Mystical Teachings
4 Rune Snag
4 Skred
1 Strangling Soot
4 Terramorphic Expanse
4 Think Twice

2 Incinerate
1 Last Gasp
3 Rain of Embers
1 Shred Memory
3 Stinkweed Imp
1 Snapback
4 Zombie Musher
Mystical Teachings
 Approaching this format from a deck designer’s perspective presents many interesting obstacles to overcome. It is a combat phase format: battles are won and lost on life totals and creature removal. This makes cards that do either very important. However, it is a format limited by the speed of Saps, meaning that every spell has to be highly efficient- there can be no dead cards. This means that any card that is part of a good interaction must be multi-functional.

Competitive Standard decks also need to have an early, middle, and late game plan. All of the big three have these (with the exception perhaps of some Saps builds) and to have a chink in the armor at any point prove lethal. Removal is a must and your deck must be able to handle having a significant portion of your army targeted. Being able to sweep the board is an important tool against Saps and other swarm style decks that pop up. You can not just have removal, however, as the slower decks of the formats often run a Grim Harvest engine. Rather, a deck needs additional disruption where ever it can be found.

In addition to this, building a deck for standard requires one to be aware that there will be a number of aura based decks. These decks are expert at card-disadvantage. They load up Silhana Ledgewalkers with as many pairs of pants as possible and swing in. It is not uncommon for these decks to play eleven creatures and sixteen auras. I am not saying the decks are good, only that they are played and even have won events.Terror and Last Gasp are key spells, as are cards like Skred and Tendrils of Corruption. Feast of Flesh also helps at the start of the removal curve.

Knowing all of these, we can extrapolate a number of guiding principles for current PDC standard deckbuilding:

Your deck must prepare for Saps:  The old saying goes a failure to plan is planning to fail. Every deck must have a way to stop the fungal swarm from ending the game on their terms. There are a few ways to accomplish this task. First is to overload on removal, playing upwards of twenty spells specifically to answer creatures. In this case, the removal has to exist on a curve with an overload in the two mana slot. This way, the removal can match the curve of a Saps deck and hopefully keep their army off the board. Sometimes, this does not work, as the removal drawn comes at odd times, hence the overload at the second mana slot. Here, Momentary Blink is a virtual card advantage engine, but also serves as a counter for removal. Fortify could conceivably do the same thing, either ending the game or saving your creatures

Another option is the sweeper: Rain of Embers does not cut it here, as Saps often runs Veteran Armorer or Lumithread Field. Subterranean Shambler and Martyr of Ashes both provide better options, with the latter being played more often due to its ability to deal quite a bit of damage.

Finally, some decks go for the lifegain route:  Most Often these decks combine Momentary Blink with Blind Hunter and Aven Riftwatcher. These combinations gave rise to the various Orzhov Teachings builds, helping them survive until their card advantage hopes to take over.

You must prepare for control:  Along the same lines, many feel that the best way to overcome Saps is to out attrition them. This means quite a bit of removal and other denial cards. These decks also tend to win with a large creature, so having resiliency and answers is important in the current Standard environment. There are few successful true Draw-Go style decks due to the fact that there is no spell that can really stop Saps from them on turn two, leading to more decks on the board control side of the spectrum.

A strong Rebel chain helps against control with uncounterable threats and Evolution Charm  is always versatile, but rarely amazing..

Your deck must have a plan for each stage of the game:  Even if this plan is "build up resources" it must be well thought out. Standard games start on turn one and against some of the decks, end before turn five. Ignoring any step along the way, as I said, exposes a chink your armor that is almost always lethal. Although Saps dominates the early game, it is the control decks that rule the late game (obviously). This means that your early to mid-game plan should include answers to aggro and your mid-game to late plan should have answers for control. Again, removal is a star here as is Grim Harvest.

Your deck must have answers to the graveyard:  Stinkweed Imp and Grim Harvest make multiple appearances in numerous decks. Because of this, having cards that are able to remove cards from the graveyard can be important. Blink and Teachings both abuse the graveyard.

You must be ready to face jank: Even though the decks listed above are the ones I feel are the best, many other decks make appearances (including the aforementioned Aura based decks). Not expecting decks that you might consider "bad" is almost as bad as not preparing for one of the tried and true strong decks.

Using these guiding principles, I went into the tank as they say to develop a deck for the current Standard environment. Based on the fact that removal is a must as is having access to a sweeper, I knew Red was going to be one of my colors. Similarly, few colors can play the late game in PDC like Black thanks to that color's graveyard theme in the form of Gravedigger and Grim Harvest. I then focused on the colors' aggressive tendencies and found a nice little aggro deck that had a serviceable matchup (post-board) with Saps. The deck also had a nice late game thanks to chaining Pit Keepers together to use the graveyard as a resource in an updated form of the Digger-D (the strategy by which MBC would chain Gravediggers together to create a perpetual blocker). After initially testing a twenty land build, I upped the count to twenty-one and added a second Harvest as that little instant helps get the engine rolling for this deck.

Mother Theresa Chokeslams the World

Editors Note:  This article has been updated.  I was able to find the original decklist with a little help from a friend. 

4 Cry of Contrition
4 Incinerate
3 Shock
10 Snow-Covered Mountain
8 Snow-Covered Swamp
4 Terror
4 Emberwilde Augur
4 Gathan Raiders
4 Gobhobbler Rats
2 Grim Harvest
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Pit Keeper
3 Rakdos Carnarium
2 Wrecking Ball

4 Shred Memory
4 Martyr of Ashes
4 Skred
2 Wrecking Ball



*Taken from a song title from The Flatliners, quite possibly the best song title ever.

The deck plays the aggro game early and then shifts to aggro-control once it hits five lands and is holding a Harvest. It is full of little synergies that help get the deck going against the control decks and being aggro is good against the random decks you will encounter. Against Saps, Mother Teresa will side out its discard and expensive removal for the
Skreds and Martyrs, hoping to hit the early drops with removal or sweeping the board. In fact, if in game two or three you draw a hand with out Terror, Skred, or Martyr, I would mulligan into such a hand. Cry of Contrition is a stellar card here thanks in no small part to Emberwilde Augur and Keldon Marauders; these creatures almost guarantee that the Haunt will work in your favor. Shred Memorys in the board are more useful against Orzhov builds of Teachings than regular Teaching builds. In those cases, side out the Cry for the Shreds and mess with their Haunt tricks and Blinks. This will help to slow down their virtual advantages and may give you the edge you need. Skreds more useful than the Shocks.

Mother Teresa wants to beat down. Its ideal start is to lay down a beater or two and then go to town on life totals until the graveyard is full of creatures. At that point, the Keepers and Harvests come online to help keep the pressure going and reuse the damage dealing creatures.

In my limited testing, this deck performs just under even against Saps, which is good enough for me. Against regular Teachings, this deck just goes to town, exhausting their resources and then beating down with regrown monsters. Both the Blink Teachings and UR Aggro-Control matchups are this side of favorable, but are not auto-win by any stretch of the means. Against Blink, side out the discard as per above.

So here's to Standard, at least for the time being.

When does Lorwyn get released again?

Keep slingin' commons-







by 53N531 at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 19:04
53N531's picture

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. 

by Dreager_Ex at Thu, 09/13/2007 - 06:27
Dreager_Ex's picture

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

by khirareq at Thu, 09/13/2007 - 08:01
khirareq's picture

I actually tried to use the hyperlink function in the comment editor to link to another place, but it just locked the comment.  I couldn't use the mouse on it, had to finish editing with the keyboard.

sensei vs. spike by hurriboy at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 16:36
hurriboy's picture

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

. by 53N531 at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 18:51
53N531's picture

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.

by khirareq at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 12:11
khirareq's picture

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! :)

by khirareq at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 10:40
khirareq's picture

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!

by SpikeBoyM at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 11:22
SpikeBoyM's picture

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. 


by Gloinoin (Unregistered) (not verified) at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 11:34
Gloinoin (Unregistered)'s picture

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?

by SpikeBoyM at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 09:53
SpikeBoyM's picture

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.


MTCtW by Polyjak (Unregistered) (not verified) at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 23:19
Polyjak (Unregistered)'s picture

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! 

Card Advantage Theory in Nightwalker by khirareq at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 08:51
khirareq's picture

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!

by 53N531 at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 21:08
53N531's picture

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

by Dreager_Ex at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 16:33
Dreager_Ex's picture

I've faced this problem before if you present the original name in google with Puremtgo then looked at the cached site you might find the original.

by 53N531 at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 20:27
53N531's picture

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

by SpikeBoyM at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 20:51
SpikeBoyM's picture

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?"


Thank you for getting this up by SpikeBoyM at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 12:29
SpikeBoyM's picture

As for the list, you're pretty spot on.  I think I actually have 2 Harvests instead of three.  I run no Feasts, and only three Shocks.  There are two Wrecking Balls, and three of the lands are Carnariums.  There are also four Gobhobbler Rats in the deck.  The SB is 2 Ball, 4 Skred, 1 Shock, 4 Shred Memory, and 4 Martyr (all from memory at work).

Thanks Joshua!