i feel its just another resticted list.dec pos artical but i thought you guys *might* want to read this.
Yeah man, the banned/restricted list all the way!
Hook yourself up with a game-winning Doomsday, too!
What, no Dream Halls?
Turn2 Blood Moon's a bitch, eh? Wait, not on the B/R list. Who's gonna play that?!
While I may not play much Type1, I see my B/W control deck crushing this.
I think a well-made mono-R deck would do the same.
well, the author doesn't seem to know that mox diamond is restricted, based on the aside comment.
when an author can't care enough about the format to learn the ruleset, i don't care enough to read the article.
I think you're misjudging things a little. The restricted list is still a good starting point for a deck. You shouldn't put cards in a deck just because they're restricted, but a lot of restricted cards have great synergy with each other-- for example, fast mana and draw 7 effects. The restricted is indeed an excellent starting point for draw-7.dec. Play all the cards which support your draw 7 options.
That said, the article was pretty weak. But it's arrogant of us to say, "Oh, he's so dumb, we're so smart, Beyond Dominia residents are the only people who know anything about Type 1, pardon me while I stroke my ego."
PS: Doomsday is restricted for a reason. If you could play 4 of them, you could build an extremely solid deck built around timewalk recursion that would easily go off turn 3. You have no trouble racing beatdown decks, and because it's a 1-card combo (just Doomsday), the rest of your deck can be duress, hymn, and counterspells to stop control decks. The deck would be *really* solid. But with just 1 Doomsday, it's just not consistant enough.
Doomsday decks are incredibly fragile. They die to a single Force of Will or Ancestral Recall. That's why they need not be restricted. Hell, they existed before and no one played them.
Yeah, but while the deck he lists isn't great, it's the message in that article that matters: Type 1 is fun, you should try it.
JP is right, since if you pay attention the author's intentions are obvious.
My point about Doomsday decks is that because they use so little space for combo, you can fill up the rest of your deck with anti-counterspell measures. You don't die to one counterspell when you have Mana Drain + Force of Will backup, especially after you decimated their hand with Hymn to Tourach and Duress.
I liked this article, and it was well written and largely correct. Particularly since he said he made a deck and this was how, not that it was a great or even good deck (though it's solid).
"While I may not play much Type1, I see my B/W control deck crushing this.
I think a well-made mono-R deck would do the same."
No, and no.
"Doomsday is restricted for a reason. If you could play 4 of them, you could build an extremely solid deck built around timewalk recursion that would easily go off turn 3."
No. Doomsday creates an infinite mana loop with Regrowth, Black Lotus, and Timetwister that kills with decking.
"Doomsday decks are incredibly fragile. They die to a single Force of Will or Ancestral Recall. That's why they need not be restricted. Hell, they existed before and no one played them."
No, no, no, and no.
No one played them because of Academy. With an unrestricted Doomsday that deck becomes MONSTROUS, even if it's one of the hardest combo decks to play. If Doomsday were unrestricted, I'd probably have played it in the ToC.
...and if you played it, I'd always keep U open so I could kill you with Ancestral in response to your Twister. The deck was easy to stop and really frickin' hard to play (probably up with Rade's Turob-Mulligan and FEB as the hardest decks ever to play.) That's why I didn't like it.
Have you seen a build that has Abeyances? A successful Abeyance pretty much clinches the victory. Doomsday and Reap/Lace are the two most respectable T1 combos, IMO, because they are a pain in the ass and rarely win by accident.
But I still think I'd win.
"Doomsday and Reap/Lace are the two most respectable T1 combos"
I have actually never played against either of these decks, I have seen posts for Reap/Lace (I think Matt mentioned it once too) but I have never seen a Doomsday combo deck. If these are solid decks, do you think they are going to start popping up more in the future? Are they not played because people don't know about them?
This article looked respectable enough to me. I'd be the first to disagree with taking the restricted list and turning it into a deck, but I think this guy did it well enough.
I don't think he claimed to be doing anything other than exploring Type I with a very positive and open attitude. Since he probably plays Type I much less than you guys, I figure it's good enough given that.
It's a relatively cavalier (our standards) approach to deckbuilding and it has no strategy notes because it's brief, sure, but is there anything really bad or below par?
ReapLace--posting TheReapLacementKillers was my first ever post on BD.
You don't see ReapLace popping up because I'm the only one who's enough of a crackhead to play that deck. It's a beeyatch to play and doesn't have a lot of the benifits normally associated with combo decks. It rarely get's OOPS, I won hands. It also has to actually pay attention to what the opponent is doing--it doens't just ignore non- control decks. It can also be partially hosed by silly cards like Tormod's Crpyt if they hit at the wrong time. I think I had interdict in the side when I used to play it for this reason.
On the other hand the deck is utterly unafraid of meeting a control deck across the table and no one knows what the hell do do or how to play against it. Plus you get to dust off those Bayous.
I'll say this ReapLace, as a combo deck, is a great control deck.
Doesn't Reap/Lace also kinda need the Lotus to go infinite? or are there other ways?