Josh (solebush1) coming at you with another Innistrad 8-4 draft. Thought this format was stale? Well this ain’t your grandfather’s green white deck.
Innistrad Draft #27
-
Social Media Hellhole
Josh (solebush1) coming at you with another Innistrad 8-4 draft. Thought this format was stale? Well this ain’t your grandfather’s green white deck.
first
After you semi-committed to 4 colors and you took Darkthicket Wolf over Shimmering Grotto, and then Grotto wheeled, I said out loud, “You lucky bastard.”
hauberk keeps finding its way into my green white decks. its just got tons of value with elder cathar, traveler, flipping thraben sentry, morbid on command for boars and (if your draft went a little south) woodland sleuth. plus if you get it equiped to a voiceless spirit or other common flier it’s such a huge beating. that being said I think it looks right cutting it in this deck, especially when it means cutting a creature to keep it in.
Triple-Mulch splashing for anything you want is a legit archetype. I’m really pleased to see this draft posted, since I won my last 8-4 with a very similar deck. Three Mulches, 2 Pilgrims, and a Traveler’s Amulet let me play just 14 lands, so I could make the creature count really high and still splash for Unburial Rites and various removal spells. Not a speck of blue in the deck. My bombs were different from yours (Daybreak Ranger, Cagebreakers, and 2 Boneyard Wurms), but it played out in a similar way, and Gnaw to the Bone was just as important.
I came away from that draft with the same impression that you had here: even in a format that could be considered stale at this point, one can still draft creatively and build something interesting.
Ghostly Possession is a decent answer to Ludevic’s Test Subject.
Love the deck :)
My only gripe would be Elder Cathar over rebuke; my feeling is that you can always pick up a late Cathar, which in fact you end up doing.
Dumb question. How can I make my MtGO look like that, with the steps between?
How can you think so long to make the obvious mistake of attacking with your darkthicket wolf?
Horrible horrible play in every single way and you thought for a minute to make it…
I hate the ‘stopped watching’ comment, but this was close.
couldn’t agree more with ^above. You see you have a 3/3 in hand… and you wonder if you should let his heir become a 3/3…
attacking with the wolf was definitely a mistake.
I dunno, there are a million cards that push his guy through there anyways and I feel like I’m favored in a race with the gnaw in hand. Worst case, it doesn’t seem that bad to me if I end up trading my mystics if I get to keep bashing with the wolf in the meantime. Obviously him playing the rats and an extra guy the next turn changes that plan, but that doesnt mean it was a mistake.
I’m gonna level with you, Josh. I enjoy watching you, you’re one of my preferred drafters on this site. But please, could you possibly post more than 1 deck every single draft? I know you draft a lot. But I think maybe _once_ you didn’t build a deck with Spider Spawning in it. And I know that just because that one card is in all your decks it is a bit dramatic to say they’re all the same deck, but it really feels like it when your strategy eventually boils down to “make spider spawning work”.
I’m grateful for what you do, I like your drafts. But could you possibly have given us one or two videos that you didn’t pick the same card for? It really kills my motivation to watch the games when I see you’re just doing the same thing you did every other Innistrad draft.
OK. Next draft I guarantee will have 0 spider spawnings. But I’ll have you know I’m crying a little on the inside.
Loved watching as always. Can’t wait to see you open a pack with spider spawning and 2 mulches, and watch you not pick the spawning :)
A million cards that push the guy through that won’t do so later? That make it then a 4/4, or a 5/5. If he had had something to push through, you would have been in way more trouble with your line of play. Besides your reasoning was you didn’t want to trade your 2 drop that gets better when you have nothing to cast with his 3 drops that gets better when you race. You end up having to trade your superior 4 drop while not only you get in, but he also without using any ‘push through’ cards he might have had.
Against RB, the colors of racing if anything and gnaw to the bone gets good when you mill/trade, not when you race.
Sorry, but the decision is indefensively bad and really obviously so.
i think when magic players who take the game seriously refer to the value in decisions rather than the intelligence of the player making them then the quality of player will instantly get better. saying a play is indefensibly bad is a combination of weak logic and rude temperament.
nice draft really liked the way it came together.
I also dont attack with the wolf but i liked your line there. magic is such a game of small edges and the nuts and bolts plays (like trading your 2/2 for his 2/2 being correct) are kinda obvious. I think the game rewards people who look for contrarian lines (like putting spider spawning in a non ug/b mill deck). hence doing something counter-intuitive, as in the case of the wolf, could be necessary in order to differentiate yourself from the herd.
peace.
I don’t really have a constructive comment to make but for some reason I loved this draft. Great draft man.
Yeah that was a bad attack with the Wolf. It’s not strange to make bad strategic choices when you’re busy playing and talking to the recorder, but it is kinda strange to defend that attack later when you can reassess. Considering how tied up your mana was going to be, isn’t trading your 2 drop for his 3 drop that grows pretty good? I doubt he even would have attacked into it.
Dogcalledroofie:
I hope you like irony because your comment is swimming in it. You first talk about commenting on the play and not the player and then go on to and talk about “a rude temperament” I am supposed to have. You also mention poor logic and then go on to say a bad play might be better just to be different?
Also, the play is indefensively bad, calling it that is just telling the truth. Josh is generally a fine recreational player, but there are so many reasons to not attack and none to attack. Often you can make an argument for different lines of play: do you take a risk while winning or give them more time to draw out is a classic example. One might be better, but it would be difficult to judge. Then there are plays that are just bad. Like this one.
Everyone gets sloppy and makes mistakes, I’ve lost many a game to sloppy play as have plenty of others. Sometimes you are tired, not really paying attention, just miss something or you are recording. However, when you do ponder for an entire minute and then get to reflect upon the decision later on, figuring it out correctly would be nice.
If I come across a bit direct (rudely tempered, if you like), I apologise. I do appreciate the free content but I have never learned the skill not to (inwardly) scream at the screen when players make a mistake and this gave me a long time to chant “don’t attack, don’t attack.
You have called the play indefensibly bad several times, yet here I am defending it. You don’t get to decide what is indefensible. I can absolutely agree that there is a chance that staying back there is correct, but to say it’s black and white is just insanely narrow minded. You speak as if I’m deciding whether or not to trade my wolf for his heir, but that’s clearly not the decision. Rather, I’m deciding whether I want to give him the option of trading for my wolf, which is quite a bit worse. Given my hand, I don’t think the game hinges on keeping the heir as a 2/2. I don’t have a compelling reason to fear a 3/3 heir so much that I should start putting myself on the back by giving control of the games tempo to my opponent as soon as turn 3.
I’m not being a fanboy or anything dumb like that but I honestly think that there was no way holding back from a rakish heir is the correct play. Why the hell would he be afraid of that thing? Its not even an alternate iffy strategy at all to attack with the wolf, its dumb not to swing. What’s the fuss here?
Comment, all this hate for the wolf attack, but no one is pointing out how bad the double Elder Cathar attack was in Round 8? I guess you didn’t get that far (can’t blame you).
Actual, Josh’s misunderstanding of how stacking Cathar triggers works is demonstrated a couple times. First, with Doomed Traveler and double Elder Cathar on board, he says that a Rolling Temblor (or “Tremblor”) will leave him with a 3/3 token, but actually, all of their death triggers stack at the same time, and the Cathars’ get countered due to no legal targets. (An ability needs a target to be put on the stack.)
This same thing came up later after the bad double Elder Cathar attack (around 8:00 in Part 8). After they both died, and their triggers hit the stack, you went to play Midnight Haunting so you could target those tokens, but it’s already too late then. There’s a line about “Either way, I can just let it trigger first” (nope). But MODO teaches that lesson fine.
I mean, that’s a rules misunderstanding. It doesn’t really have to do with the attack, which was bad in the first place. First off, I don’t agree with not playing Elder of Laurels the turn before. I know you mention not wanting to lose it to Into the Maw, but your opponent ends up having that option later anyway and takes out the Gallows Warden. With the Elder of Laurels out, that would have been a great attack.
But never mind, you didn’t play it and that was your choice, with upsides and downsides. Let’s talk about what did happen: I don’t get why you attack with the un-Cleavered Cathar…I mean, you had been attacking comfortably with him the turn before, but your opponent played a 4/4 Murder of Crows, which meant he could eat the Cathar no problem. With a Cleaver out, I try to get full value of each Human, not toss them away for a +1/+1 counter (which was especially strange because at the time you thought he would bounce a guy on his next turn, which was reasonable since he had two Grasps and a Departure). He was going to have to block the equipped one soon, which would have only made the second one a bigger problem…but like I said, you threw him out and I’m not sure why.
Anyway, that’s a “bad attack” in my book. Hopefully this strategy discussion will go a little better than the last on this video set, without anyone getting personal or debating who can and cannot call something indefensible. I know anyone who posts videos is likely to defend their choices, but hopefully with a clear head you’ll reassess this attack and either agree with me or explain something I missed that makes it more strategic.
As for playing the elder, he only has that option later because he has 2! Can’t play around both, but avoiding the first one definitely seemed correct.
As for attacking with both Cathars, the reason was because attacking with one doesn’t advance my board position at all. I get to gain 5 life, which is nice, but hes going to keep blocking with the crab. I either need my flyer to be big enough to trade with the murder or I need either the traveler or one of the cathars to be able to swing through the crab. While its true I still have gas in hand, he clearly does as well, but his mana restricts how much he can do. I’m able to present an elder of laurels, which I’m sure he can deal with (into the maw) but that stops him from doing anything else. So by attacking with the second cathar I either get in for 2 damage if he lets it through or allow myself to have something on the board capable of attacking post-maw. I think my opponent made a pretty big mistake killing both my cathars, because that gives me 2 guys capable of attacking, and just kept him too far on the back foot for the rest of the game (though spiders might have won it anyways).
Had I not attacked with the cathar, I don’t think it would be correct to play the elder into his removal, especially given that I only need 1 more mana to play it and activate in the same turn to force a bad block/push through some significant damage. I think the play would be to just make tokens and attach the cleaver. I think this is a reasonable line of play as well, but again, I don’t agree that the line I took was bad.
And yeah…. I totally whiffed on how those triggers work. I swear if it was on an exam I would’ve thought it through and gotten it right!
Hey Josh, yeah you made some mistakes but I always enjoy your drafts, but I have a question. So there is this chick in my ethics class who is really attractive (I swear she has D cup size) and I know for a fact she likes canadians. What is the best way to look, sound, and overall be Canadian? Come on Frankel, help a bro out!
It is black and white. Really, bolting yourself when at 3 life is bad, this play is bad. Your talk really is all air and no substance on this matter:
“You speak as if I’m deciding whether or not to trade my wolf for his heir, but that’s clearly not the decision. Rather, I’m deciding whether I want to give him the option of trading for my wolf, which is quite a bit worse.”
Hardly.
-If he kills your wolf and would have done so regardless if you attacked you missed out on 2 damage, if he was going to play a crossway vampire regardless if you attacked, it is the same thing. Very worst case scenario.
-If he would decide to play crossway/ killspell / pumpspell with the purpose of getting in, fine, he used those spells now, so he can’t use them on more important creatures or at a better time.
-If he decides to not attack because he does not want to trade, fine. Your two drop gets better if neither attacks as you get more mana, his 3 drop does little and does not grow.
-If he decides to trade: perfect, an extra creature in the yard for gnaw to the bone and spider spawning. With a hand full of spells (with flashback) you are unlikely to ever have mana spare to pump the thing, so at best it is going to be a 2/2 bear that looks scarier when it attacks, but racing is probably not what this hand does best with multiple cards that rely on the graveyard against a RB deck.
If you do attack however, you get 2 damage (whoopiedido) and take 2 damage and his vampire grows to the point where your wolf can no longer block him and you’ll likely have to trade with it in some other fashion as you procede to do. That is, if he does not go into crossway vampire and grows to a 4/4.
Regardless, attacking
‘Given my hand, I don’t think the game hinges on keeping the heir as a 2/2. I don’t have a compelling reason to fear a 3/3 heir so much that I should start putting myself on the back by giving control of the games tempo to my opponent as soon as turn 3.’
Probably not, but the game sure as hell does not hinge on you getting 2 damage in with a wolf in a game where you are likely to be on the defensive since you are mulching against a RB deck and as you later say, you are likely heavily favoured in a longer game as RB has no cardadvantage and you have a reanimate spell without the mana to cast it nevermind stuff like spider spawning.
Putting yourself on what back foot and what giving control of what tempo? Attacking with your wolf does not mean you are on the front foot. It does not mean you have retained the control of the tempo. These are just airwords that do not mean anything. What you have is a creature that is guarenteed to grow into a 3/3 if you attack that you now (guaranteed) have to deal with some other way. Probably with your 4 drop you just drew. Which is, unsurprisingly, what happened.
Consider you are mulching on your turn 3, it is likely you are going to be on the defensive, not because you held back, but because you did nothing to advance your board. And guess what, you were.
“You have called the play indefensibly bad several times, yet here I am defending it. You don’t get to decide what is indefensible.”
Because it is. Subjectivity only gets you so far. This is magic, we assume there are situation where there is a correct play, where there are multiple lines you could argue for and plays that are just bad. Like this one. There is a reason pro’s talk about “the right play”, “the right pick” or “the right card” in a deck.
Honestly, if you are durdling with incremental advantage that relies on creatures in the graveyard against RB with a creature that grows as it attacks that you can now still block, try to block. It is an INDEFENSIVELY BAD, a phrase I use so you do not have to spell out the what would appear to be obvious.
That’s a pretty good response. I think our game strategies tend to differ, as I figure with a Cleaver I’ve got inevitability in that scenario, whereas you tend to be more aggressive in general (hence this other discussion about the wolf attack). I can see your logic though. Thanks for the reply.