Messages

@Natural Order: I always considered it to be some kind of a green Tinker, so I didn't understand the unban in the first place. However, the council had the balls to give it a try and, even more importantly, the balls to admit it was a mistake. -> OK.

@Top: I completely disagree with the ban and do not think that many arguments brought up for the ban are entirely valid. However, I will not go into details here. We had this discussion a couple of times - no need to repeat it here. (And no point of doing so.) It got the axe, so that's that.

What I really find curious is the watchlist update. Half the storm deck is on the watchlist... why? Looking at recent results, I don't see that the deck is oppressive at all. Yawgmoth's Will on the watchlist? Sure, the card's effect is ridiculous, however in most decks it's just a bad Regrowth and therefore almost only Storm uses this card. All that + considering that Storm just lost a very important card with Sensei's Divining Top.

Most of the argumentation towards reintroducing those dangerous cards into the metagame look like arguments to introduce an invasive species to a healthy ecosystem in the hopes of diversifying it. We all know what usually happens in that case.

I do not completely agree here. If we do not test cards in an evolved metagame (to kinda stick to your metaphor), we would never see cards in the format again once they got banned. Remember the unbanning Life from the Loam? The impact was not too large... in fact, did it have any impact at all? But ppl were still remembering Loam-wars and were kinda 'afraid' when the unbanning was announced iirc. Why not test cards for a season and gather some data like it was just done with Natural Order? Trial and error. That's fine with me as long as the council has the guts to admit it didn't work out as expected. But considering the latest decision on Natural Order... they did a good job.

(Disclaimer: I don't mean to test everything, obviously. Sol Ring and such stuff are so broken, we don't have to test it to know that such cards are bad for the format.)

Thanks for explaining a bit why you voted for / against bans. Even though I don't agree on all of this, it makes it a lot easier to... digest if ppl give reasons.

The post is kinda spam, but I wanted to express explicitly that I appreciate you explaining your thoughts on the cards on the respective (un-)ban-lists. Kudos to you!

Ave!

I have been wondering why nobody commented on the changes about the legality of CE, IE and gold-bordered cards on tournaments. First, I thought I am the only person who is concerned about the changes but talking to some friends, I learned that I am not.

I understand that (currently) the decision to allow IE,CE, gold-bordered cards on tournaments is entirely up to the TO. Giving the TOs a little more freedom... no complaints about that. What I am actually concerned about is the direction this change is possibly leading to: all HL tournaments will be sanctioned. So this discussion is quite on the theoretical side at the moment.

Let me start with the hypothetical worst case scenario: At some point in the future IE, CE, gold-bordered cards will be banned from the format entirely or they will not be allowed on the big HL tournaments.

For me personally that would indicate that I will no longer be able to play on the big tournaments... which were one main driving force to play this wonderful format. I just cannot afford to buy duals for the current prices. Why should anybody care? - Because I think that more players would face this problem. We already have a high price tag to enter the format - with allowing IE, CE, gold-bordered cards, we lower it at least to some amount.

Why is the price tag relevant? I assume here that lower 'entrance fee' => easier to attract new players who do not already possess the a fetch / dual manabase because they are playing e.g. Legacy. This leads directly to why we should be interested in recruiting new players from non-eternal formats (modern =/= eternal )? One could argue with sanctioning HL tournaments we may attact more Legacy and Vintage players... they are fully equipped for HL already! - I think that the gain from this group of players is not very high. They could enter the format already if they wanted. Will they be attracted to prefer HL over Legacy / Vintage just because HL tournaments are sanctioned? I don't believe they will. They could just continue playing the formats they know well and which offer (in case of Legacy) larger tournaments.

The bottom line of the last paragraph is: We have to recruit players who do not have a Legacy / Vintage background and who would have to invest heavily to enter the HL format. Two reasons: 1. This group of players is larger (Hello captain obvious!). 2. These players are younger on average.

Especially the latter point is important for the development of the HL format in my opinion. From my personal experience the HL community consists mainly of ppl who are 25+. These will sooner or later drop out of the active community for various reasons (job, family, move to another place,...). If we do not succeed to 'replace' them with young players, the format will dwindle away. -> This is exactly opposite of what the council had in mind whith introducing these changes!

I suppose that the council was well aware of all this and I guess they had a long discussion about it. Currently, the complete line of thoughts above is rather hypothetical but as I said... I'm more concerned about the future implications if we push further into the direction of sanctioning HL. Perhaps I'm just too pessimistic. I can hardly argue against trying out if the community grows if we give the TOs the opportunity to decide whether a tournament will be sanctioned. Real life experiments and not just gedankenexperiments!

I'm interested in your thoughts on this issue - let's hear (read) them!

@Maqi and variance: I agree with you that we should not reduce the variance too much in order to make sure that everyone has a fair chance to win a game. However, we play a format that has intrinsicly more variance than the 'usual' magic (4 copies of the key cards + 60 card decks) simply because it's a 1off-format and the decks are larger.

You were addressing the mana system only, but I think this ignores the fact that we do have a lot more variance in the power level of the cards we play with the mana. Discussing the mulligan issue has to take this into account as well - especially if we argue with the variance of opening hands/ topdecks. The 'usual' magic, the mana system and the mulligan rule are tailored toward 60 card decks with 4offs. We opted to consciously get rid of the 4off/60 cards rule to allow more variance in the stuff we cast with the mana.

I think what we did with the alternative mulligan rules in this particular format is: Shifting the variance from the manabase to the cards we cast with the mana. Less variance in the manabase, more variance in the cards played.

I personally like this manabase -> spell variance shift... I hate losing because of screw/flood. It feels like not playing a game. Losing because my opponent has better cards / played better... that's ok for me. At least we played the same game.

Bottom line @ mulligan: I like the free mulligan a lot. With the spoils mulligan the pre-game hand shaping felt quite absurd. I played cards I should not have considered playing... but with the spoils I was sure to (almost) never have them in my opening 7.
The normal mulligen... I personally don't like it in this format.

-----

Another argument I read now and then: "We should try to be as close to the 'usual' magic as possible. That's why we should use the Paris mulligan.'

I disagree and, honestly, I don't quite understand the logic behind this. @Paris mulligan: See text above....

@we should be as close to 'usual' magic as possible: This would imply to not allow cards with gold borders and IE / CE if we are consequent here. The format is already very expansive... why should we increase the price to play a successful deck even more if we want to attract new players? The vintage community nowadays depends on allowing to play proxies because nobody can afford the card prices. I personally think that's where this line of thought would lead us.

This format will never even feel like 'usual' magic. So why bother? This way we are in complete control what happens to our ban lists, mulligan rules and so on... just like we do in this thread.  I appreciate this. Why hand the power to shape our format over to WotC? (Because this would be the ultimate goal if we follow the 'as close to usual magic as possible' road.)

My 2 cents. I hope the text is not too confusing to read.

Name/Nick: carte_blanche

How do you rate the banned-list on a scale from 1 to 10 (1=poor, 10=great)?

7


Which mulligan-rule do you prefer? 

Free Mulligan


How do you rate the free mulligan on a scale from 1 to 10?

8


How often do you play Highlander (mp.org-rules)

once per month



How often have you played on a HL-GP / -Cup (including this one / no. 14)?

never



Which cards are missing on the banned-list and why? (max. the 5 most important ones)

Mystical Tutor – instant speed tutoring for merely one mana is the reason that makes the card overpowered in my opinion. The opponent just has not enough time to react – no time at all if played correctly.



Which cards should be deleted from the banned-list and why? (max. the 5 most important ones)

Gifts Ungiven – four mana tutor is not too critical imho.



Which prices do you like to win on a HL-Cup like this?


Highlander staples from older sets like Workshop, Tabernacle, Mana Drain, Duals
&
Prices don't matter as long price payout is fair (good relation between value of price cards in comparison to expected sum of starting fee)

I was tempted to play the card now and then for exactly the same reasons you stated here, Maqi. However, the list I posted above your post is not a storm deck in the sense of TES but a combo deck that just uses storm to win. It's not tuned towards a natural storm kill to which you're referring to. (If I got you right...?) I alway preferred Firespout-like cards that get rid not just of these unnerving hate bears but also buy me one or two rounds against aggro by cleaning the whole board.

Moreover, I tend to use transmute cards as tutors so I naturally chose to play Pyroclasm and Toxic Deluge over single-target removal (toolboxing). Keeping in mind these reasons I would rather play Fire // Ice because it can be used to burn up to two creatures and is still usable against control (tapping islands). Worst case scenario: it just cycles.

Usually my problem in Oath-Storm decks is to assemble the combo parts in time and protect them. Once I manage this the storm count / damage output is almost arbitrary.

I am aware, that this reasoning must not hold true for a dedicated storm list... here mana const matters more due to the (comparatively) small number of fast mana cards (ritual mana, LED, moxen,...) and you usually don't got access to your whole library. My question is: how many of such "Blot effects" do you wanna play? And what to cut? Pyroclasm effects? (If you even play them in the first place.) Cutting tools to search for the right cards is certainly not the way to go, I suppose.

Nice thread... I agree - I don't think combo is dead. Even creatureless combo is imho an option. There are just not enough players that like to play combo decks. Combo decks usually require a lot of practice and that's the show-stopper (I believe) for many players. As far as I can tell most HL players are of age 25+ and thus don't have too much leisure time left for turning paper cards and mastering such decks.

- - -

I've been testing Oath-storm variants for quite a long time. Unfortunately I lack practice playing them due to time issues. So my list might not be streamlined to the last... and I tend to loose against myself quite often... Embarassing moments when you just realize how you would/should have won right after you lost the game. Lack of practice.

@the deck: When I'm playing 5c anyway, why not being super-greedy? So I combined some parts of the untapping engine from High Tide with Academy for mana generation - either "as combo" or as mana generation during a combo turn but not with too much focus on that aspect. First, the deck was focussed more onto the "High Tide game" with Tolarian Academy but that was way too clunky. Now I use the artifact mana both as acceleration to a critical amount of mana and as a backup against Blood Moon and Back to Basics.

In general, there are 3,5 ways to victory... Oath of Druids, Ad Nauseam, Basalt Monolith + Mesmeric Orb and a natural Tendrils for 20. The latter I count only as 0.5 because you can't set up a storm kill within reasonable time (around turn 5) without a lot of luck in your draw 7s.

@I removed most of the counter magic, because these spells were too unfunctional during the games. So I took the route towards more proactive protection (discard, silence effects). Many control decks are forced to play a lot of useless cards against creatureless combo, so I feel quite comfortable with the current choice of tools. I don't even use Force of Will because I just don't play enough blue cards.

@Recursion: I currently run both, Yawgmoth's Will and Past in Flames because I feel more comfortable this way and lost a couple of games before because of not playing a second YawgWin effect. Especially in grindout games vs. control you can "waste" one of these effects to recast one of your key spells without being forced to end the game right on the spot.

@Removal: Almost nothing. Just what I need as aggro stopper (and my archenemy Aven Mindcensor) and some catch-alls.


//Lands
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Wooded Foothills
1 Windswept Heath
1 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
1 Arid Mesa
1 Marsh Flats
1 Verdant Catacombs
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Polluted Delta
1 Tundra
1 Underground Sea
1 Taiga
1 Tropical Island
1 Savannah
1 Volcanic Island
1 Bayou
1 Badlands
1 Scrubland
1 Plateau
1 Steam Vents
1 Watery Grave
1 Hallowed Fountain
1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Tree of Tales
1 Ancient Den
1 Seat of the Synod
1 Vault of Whispers
1 Great Furnace
1 Reflecting Pool
1 City of Brass
1 Forbidden Orchard
1 Tolarian Academy

//Fastmana
1 Lotus Petal
1 Dark Ritual
1 Cabal Ritual
1 Rite of Flame
1 Seething Song
1 Manamorphose

//Accel
1 Mox Diamond
1 Chrome Mox
1 Talisman of Impulse
1 Talisman of Indulgence
1 Talisman of Progress
1 Talisman of Dominance
1 Prismatic Lens
1 Chromatic Lantern
1 Gilded Lotus

//Untap mode
1 Snap
1 Frantic Search
1 Turnabout
1 Mind Over Matter

//Draw
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Timetwister
1 Reforge the Soul
1 Memory Jar
1 Time Spiral

//Orb plan
1 Basalt Monolith
1 Mesmeric Orb

//Oath plan
1 Oath of Druids
1 Griselbrand

//Ad Nauseam
1 Angel's Grace
1 Phyrexian Unlife
1 Ad Nauseam

//Tutor
1 Expedition Map
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Personal Tutor
1 Lim-Dul's Vault
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Cruel Tutor
1 Rhystic Tutor
1 Idyllic Tutor
1 Muddle the Mixture
1 Perplex
1 Intuition
1 Wargate
1 Mystical Teachings

//Seek
1 Gitaxian Probe
1 Sensei's Divining Top
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Preordain
1 Impulse

//Protection
1 Silence
1 Orim's Chant
1 Abeyance
1 Thoughtseize
1 Duress
1 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Remand
1 Izzet Charm

//Recursion, kill & removal
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Past in Flames
1 Memory's Journey
1 Toxic Deluge
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Vindicate


I think the deck stands a chance against most decks - you can beat aggro with speed and still beat control in grindout games if pure speed didn't work out. What the deck currently lacks is an experienced pilot.

Then I'll throw the first stone. 

• no ban
  
  Reason(s): One of the reasons I often hear when it comes to complaining about Sensei's Divining Top are time issues. To be honest, I cannot see this point. If that would really be an issue, Top would have been banned in Legacy long ago... but I never read any complaints in Legacy forums about that. (Though, I have to admit, I'm not a Legacy player. Maybe they just don't write about it because of superstitions ). There are decks in Legacy that want to utilize the top every game (e.g. Miracles) but still nobody complains about the Top. Sure, the format is faster, but iirc they got just half of the time we got for one game.
  
  As far as I remember I never faced time issues because of somebody using Top extensively, but very often because some people play so incredibly slow, that it's really putting your patience on the edge. They don't even not need a Top to stretch games - even with cutthroat aggro decks they manage it.
  
  Most players know their decks and its strategy well enough to figure out the order of the top three cards within seconds. Against these you never face time problems because of Sensei's Divining Top. Sometimes it does take time to decide how to order the cards you see with top, but that's usually when the game is on the edge. That's ok, I think and it's not so much different from the use of other cards in certain situations. Magic is still a game that involves some amount of thinking and decision making... I guess, I don't have to tell you. 
  
  @autoinclude in many decks: True, just like a bunch of other cards, like Wasteland, fetchlands, duals, Brainstorm in blue decks, Deathrite Shaman,... That shows: it's a powerful card amongst many others, so what? There are still some decks that don't wanna play Top (die-hard aggro comes to my mind - if you got the mana to use the top, the game is not developing in your favor).
  
  As mentioned before - it's a card that favors good decision making. Read: good players. Statistics and coincidences are part of the game (that makes the game diverse and interesting imho), but still I like to see the better player winning (even though that's often not me ). I'm usually quite irritated by random topdeck wins from nowhere.

[Name:]

Back to the topic...

Name:
carte_blanche (no clear names in the web... if you're so curious, ask the NSA)

How do you rate the banned list?
9

Which mulligan?
For the time being, I'd like to test the free mulligan a bit more. -> I like this one slightly better than the Spoils mulligan.

Free Mulligan on a scale...
8 (the Spoils one would get a 7.9,though.)

How often do you play HL?
Unfortunately just twice a month or so (time issues).

How often have you played on a HL-GP / -Cup?
Never.

Which cards are missing on the banned-list and why?
None for the time beeing. For me it's too early to make a comment on that / I'd like to be patient with the ban hammer until the dust of the Academy unban has settled.

Why not Oath of Druids? - Most of the time I try to land an Oath turn 2 without protection, it will get handeled. Most of the decks are either very fast or very adaptable nowadays. Even though the meta is creature-dominated (at least I got the impression), and Oath obviously is an 'anti-creature' card, there are not too many decks in the tops that abuse Oath (or at least far less than one would expect if the card is as broken as some people claim it is in the HL format). Sure, there are some but compared to the results of other archetypes, I cannot see that such decks dominate in any way. Even though if an Oath deck is played, it's not given, that you'll end up with a very good result. You still have to struggle for it... just as with any other deck.

Which cards should be deleted from the banned-list and why?
Maybe Entomb - I'm not too afraid of Reanimator decks, since we got two new and strong toys against such decks that are used in a wide range of decks already. Entomb, on the other hand, might be a nice toy for control / combo decks. Especially combo decks don't seem to be very popular (I consider Reanimator to be a combo deck by the way) and / or successful.


@council: Double thumbs up for your efforts to keep us pleased and the format interesting and challenging!

• B
  
  Why not A? Well, there are some weird decks around that exist just because of the spoils mulligan. Very greedy... and I do not like it.
  
  C? Why should we care about the DCI??? HL is a format completey run by players, the community has some kind of influence which cards get the ban hammer and which get unbanned. You can talk to and play with the people that make these decisions. Why should we throw away this advantage? I don't get it.
  
  (+ more a personal thing: I like to play golden bordered cards and cards from Collectors / International edition... it saves so much money!)

From my subjective view, I'd say that there were many decks with red. That was kind of bad for me since I played Chephalid Combo and was forced to dodge every Lightning Bolt... Storm would have been the better deck choice if one liked to ply a combo deck, I suppose. When looking onto other tables there were almost always red mana sources on the table.

I saw no other combo decks and just one control deck - one of my opponents with MBC. Aside from this I had the feeling that it was basicly an aggro / midrange meta, which was also a bit surprising for me. I expected to play half of the day against control decks.^^

Nice tournament, I had a lot of fun. Thanks for the games @ my opponents.

Thanks to Maqi for his effort to gather the data... but I really don't envy you people in the council for your job. When I just look to this card list, I see almost a pure goodstuff deck ready to be played.

I just copy / pasted the list in deckstats.net and that's what I'm refering to in the following.


Looking roughly at the cards played, there are several cards with UU in the mana cost and Cryptic Command. Green and white come up with two cards with double colored mana in the casting cost. There are no black or red cards with double colored mana in the list.

-> To me it seems that if you're playing control - you play blue based decks (nothing new, I suppose). I'm even a bit surprised that there is Bribery and Cryptic Command in the list... maybe control decks are not that dead in the format as I used to think but there is no diversity, even though other options exist (... but are not competitive enough?).

-> Also taking account of the number of cards of the different colors, we got a format containing just 3 colors: blue, white, green. Maybe red is there as a sidenote. Black does not seem to have any impact on the best decks at all, even though cards like Demonic Tutor and Dark Confidant exist.

35% of the lands in the list produce white mana. That leads me to the assumption that white is the most popular splash color. For which reasons... Kitchen Finks, Stoneforge Mystic, flexible or very cheap removal. IF you really look foreward to change that, maybe Stoneforge Mystic is really a card to consider to ban. I'm writing that because of the statistics and because the card is frowned upon by many people. I myself am not sure whether I would vote for a ban... but fortunately, that is not my task.

As far as I see it, there are almost no cards (besides Bribery and Cryptic Command) that I associate with certain archetypes. It's really just goodstuff overall and thus "shapeless" which makes it hard for me to get a clear view of what is to do (concerning the ban list) to "cure" the HL format (of a goodstuff sickness?).

At least now I can say that I think it would not help the format to ban Demonic Tutor. The card is the best card to gather combo pieces - an archetype that is rare currently. Also colorwise, one would take away one of the few competitive toys the black player has left. It seems to me like the format "balances" the absurd power level of the black tutor by it's "wrong" color (it sounds weird, I know). To me, it seems like players like to spalsh black for two or three cards (because it's easy with that manabase) but if you ban them, most of them won't miss it too much - it was a spash anyway. Just fill the slots with the next best blue / white / green card.

One last thing: there is no mass removal in the list at all... in a creature heavy format. Is control with a low creature count so bad in comparison with spells-on-legs-control that you cannot play it sccessfully, even though you got a fair number of mass removal at hand. Or is it too slow? (I know about Tabrys' Esper list... is he just the only one who likes this kind of deck?)

It's just a list of things that came to my mind. Certainly, I missed some points. I just hope that you take them as a motivation to start discussing. Maybe I'll add some points, when I have more time to brood over the card list, but right now I got the impression that it is not an easy task.

@Council: Keep up the good work.

@all: Keep on playing! 

I'm with Tabbris and Jopanges on most points concerning the banning of cards should be based on long-term observation or obvious meta shifts. I don't want to repeat that.

Concerning the spoils mulligan: Most of the time we play HL anyway for the last years so I admit, that I'm a bit biased. I'd say that the spoils mulligan fixes the flood / screw problem a, so I think it's a good thing that it corrects a minor flaw in the game rules. However I have not much time to turn cards, so my input on that topic should be weighted with by this.

@Natural Order, Stoneforge Mystic: Not so long ago, I thought these are problem cards... but I'm not so sure if that's valid anymore because of the unbannings during the last year. For my part, I would give the cards additional time on the watchlist before making a decision.

@Hermit Druid: I seldom win if I play Druid on turn 2 without additional protection. Since decks have adapted to cheap creature threats, they can usually deal with it easily. Moreover, you should not forget that even if you got the druid online on turn 2, it's not an auto win, since your opponet might interact with you via countermagic or because you got one of the many combo pieces on your hand (consumes time to get rid of it). That's not the usual case but you still should consider the not optimal to average draws as well, not just the nuts draws (as many people are doing here). If you got Chrome Mox + Druid + Protectoin for 0 mana and no combo pieces in your hand - ok, that's the nuts draw. I think it's ok to win that game. Other decks produce starting hands you cannot beat as well. There is no reason to be afraid of variance... If one is considering that as well, we're back at the point of consistency that Tabris already mentioned.

Good night and thumbs up to LasH for starting this very interesting discussion.

First of all: thanks a lot for sharing the results of your experiment with us, pyyhttu. -> +1

If banning fetchlands is such a problem for so many people, let's approach the problem from the opposite side: not from the tutor side (as ChristophO described it) but from the target side: Duals. Such a notional ban seems to fit into the banning policy since we saw some tutors being unbaned (we sould keep the tutors - fetchlands - in the format).

For the time being it's just an idea... I admit that I've not thought too long about it, but here is what I came up with:

- We got still an alternative to the old duals: the shock-dual manabase that enables multicolr decks as well but to a slightly higher price (play-wise). Therefore very colorful decks are still playable (in theory). Three color lists will still be playable for sure.

- It will reduce the financial barrier for new players a lot. The shock duals will be reprinted if their price rises too high and I'm quite optimistic that the fetchlands will see a reprint in the upcoming two or three blocks. (Resulting in more highlander players? - That question I cannot answer straight away.)

- It will make a 5c manabase very costy in matchups against aggro decks, therefore giving the goodstuff decks at least one (don't want to say "bad") worse matchup in comparison to the situation right now.

- Will it make control decks less playable? First I thought it will, but I'm not so sure about that anymore... it seems like the most played classical control decks are UBx and UWx nowadays - often without a third color as a splash. These decks already play quite a lot basics and are fine with that. They will loose one (important card) but still their manabase will change far less than the bases in other decks. Therefore, I assume that these decks will not suffer so much by a ban of the old duals.

- What I'm a little concerned about are the die hard combo decks that need fast access to different colored mana...

- The bad point about a ban: HL will feel less an eternal format without the old duals.


I would be happy to read some oppinions about that... maybe I just missed some important points.

Interesting that you consider to remove Silence and Chant... I'm running a deck without these cards and after some testmatches, I'm about to think which cards to kick out of the deck to play these two.

As far as I experienced the few testmatches, instant removal is the greater problem compared to graveyard hate. Here the Silence-effects would help. However, I'm playing a slower list of the deck with a lot more removal in order to get rid of the omnipresent Scavenging Ooze. Therefore I was never disrupted by that card but I don't know if that applies for your list as well.

I consider Stifle to be quite a problem since it ruins the whole combo. Therefore, I'm playing a backup storm kill via Yawgmoth's Will but that eats up a lot of space in the deck...

@Trinket Mage Toolbox:
Executioner's Capsule - handy if you need a creature removal and don't got one ready

Engineered Explosives - against fast aggro decks with many creatures but playing with four colors one is able to kill even more expansive threats. It buys me the time to kill protected against aggro (tested against RDW (horrible matchup) and Elves).

Pithing Needle - ruins most of the currently played graveyard hate (except for Shred Memory)

Top + Shuko (obviously)


@Mimeoplasm kill: Playing Rotting Rats, I never faced greater problems with that variant. Moreover you got a big beater (Lord of Extinction) if something goes horribly wrong -> sometimes I was forced to bash my opponent with that one.

Decklist can be found here, but I've not tested the deck thoroughly and there are some cards missing (due to budget reasons: Polluted Delta, Scrubland, Bayou, Thoughtseize).