9/28/2010 LI: "Fresh Scars"

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Limited Information, which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Everyone I know that played a Perilous Myr at the Pre-re loved it. Not sure that it's really a sleeper card - it tears apart infect decks and holds off anything with 3-toughness or less. Add in any kind of sacrifice effect/metalcraft/anything that takes advantage of having a random artifact around and Perilous Myr becomes kinda rediculous. Bomb yes. Sleeper, no.

That said, I honestly am not sure that any of the cards listed will be surprisingly good - the only question is whether or not deck archetypes in draft shake out to support them. In a solid green deck (paired likely with black, red or white for removal) with few artifacts, Tel Jilad Defiance becomes amazing (since you know your opponents are likely drafting tons of artifacts). In a heavy artifact deck, of course Golem Foundry is good. And Infiltration Lens is good on pretty much any card - even, say, Loxodon Wayfarer, not that you'd ever want to equip the Lens on such. Hey, block my 2/2 and let me draw two cards, or take 2 while I wait for something bigger to equip to! What a fantastic trade, especially in the light of how many games are won by "simple" 2/2s, evasion or otherwise.

Edit: Basically, what I'm saying is: Steve is supposed to be better at Magic than me, but I gained exactly zero insight from this article. That should not happen. Either Scars limited is really easy to analyze, or Steve was lazy on this article.
I was interested to see the thoughts on Golem Foundry.  I had two of them at the prerelease and dismissed them as taking way too long before you get a return on your investment, even with a Metalcraft-focused deck like I had.  A Proliferate archetype with Throne of Geth is an interesting spin.
Thanks to everyone who helped with the design of the plane of Golamo in the Great Designer Search 2!
My Decks
These are the decks I have assembled at the moment:
Tournament Decks (4)
Kicker Aggro (Invasion Block) Sunforger/Izzet Guildmage Midrange (Ravnica/Time Spiral/Xth Standard) Dragonstorm Combo (Time Spiral/Lorwyn/Xth Standard) Bant Midrange (Lorwyn/Shards/M10 Standard)
Casual Multiplayer Decks (50)
Angel Resurrection Casual Soul Sisters Sindbad's Adventures with Djinn of Wishes Sphinx-Bone Wand Buyback Morph (No Instants or Sorceries) Cabal Coffers Control Zombie Aggro Hungry, Hungry Greater Gargadon/War Elemental Flashfires/Boil/Ruination - Boom! Call of the Wild Teysa, Orzhov Scion with Twilight Drover, Sun Titan, and Hivestone Slivers Rebels Cairn Wanderer Knights Only Gold and () Spells Captain Sisay Toolbox Spellweaver Helix Combo Merfolk Wizards Izzet Guildmage/The Unspeakable Arcane Combo Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind and his Wizards Creatureless Wild Research/Reins of Power Madness Creatureless Pyromancer Ascension Anarchist Living Death Anvil of Bogardan Madness Shamen with Goblin Game/Wound Reflection Combo Mass damage Quest for Pure Flame Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle/Clear the Land with 40+ Lands Doubling Season Thallids Juniper Order Ranger Graft/Tokens Elf Archer Druids Equilibrium/Aluren Combo Experiment Kraj Combo Reap Combo False Cure/Kavu Predator Combo Savra, Queen of the Golgari Sacrifice/Dredge Elf Warriors Eight-Post Sneak Attack Where Ancients Tread Zur the Enchanter with Opal creatures Tamanoa/Kavu Predator/Collapsing Borders Esper Aggro Mishra, Artificer Prodigy and his Darksteel Reactor Theft and Control Unearth Aggro Soul's Fire Vampires Devour Tokens Phytohydra with Powerstone Minefield Treefolk Friendly? Questing Phelddagrif Slivers Dragon Arch Fun I'm probably forgetting a few...
I am stunned that a limited player as good as Steve did not play the infiltration lens in either deck (especially the poison deck).

I also find it surprising that he lists four "obviously good" cards as sleepers.
Overrated cards: [CARD]Golem Foundry[/CARD]

For every game where it makes two Golems there will be two where it makes zero Golems due to being drawn too late. And even if you make only one Golem, a 3/3 for 3 isn't exciting if it takes 4-5 turns to show up. Proliferate is all very well, but with only one Proliferate card at Common a deck that can really use Foundry well will be the exception.

I'm surprised that Steve dismissed white so readily.  It seems to me to be one of the stronger colours in the pool.  Maybe it was due to the absence of infect, if that's what he went in wanting to play?


White cards that I would have considered were...


  • Auriok Sunchaser: A potential 3/3 flyer for 2 mana (likely to be switched on with an artifact heavy deck)

  • Glimmerpoint Stag: At worst, just a 3/3 vigilance for 4 mana.  At best, a spoiler for an opposing planeswalker, or removal of infect counters from one of my creatures

  • Razor Hippogriff: 3/3 flyer for 5, with a one-shot artifact recursion and life gain

  • Revoke Existence: Solid removal spell in an artifact block

  • Salvage Scout: Cheap artifact recursion

  • Sunspear Shikari: At worst a 2/2 for 2 mana.  Much better with all the equipment in the card pool.

  • True Conviction: A true BOMB!

I would have gone for an artifact-heavy white and black deck, with some of these white cards, and a few black non-infect creatures like Blistergrub, Necrogen Scudder , Moriok Reaver and SkinrenderGrasp of Darkness in there too for some added removal.

I don't know how people are valuing it right now, but I have found Inexorable Tide to be a pretty good card.  I was able to use it with cards like Grindclock and Golden Urn.  I also managed to poison one opponent and get another opponent up to 9 poison (if I had drawn a spell I would have poisoned my opponent).  While I know that there are other proliferate cards in the set, this is the only one without a serious cost.  Two of them require four mana in order to proliferate, one has to damage the opponent, one is an instant, and one requires an artifact sacrifice.  Add in some card draw, especially with creatures like Enclave Cryptologist, and Inexorable Tide could proliferate multiple times in a turn.

While it doesn't come out very quickly, you actually don't want it to.  If the card was too cheap, you likely won't have any counters to proliferate.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
Overrated cards: [CARD]Golem Foundry[/CARD]

For every game where it makes two Golems there will be two where it makes zero Golems due to being drawn too late. And even if you make only one Golem, a 3/3 for 3 isn't exciting if it takes 4-5 turns to show up. Proliferate is all very well, but with only one Proliferate card at Common a deck that can really use Foundry well will be the exception.



I have to agree with everything said here, even down to the having two Golem Foundries in the prerelease.  That said, a friend won a game on the back of 5 golems produced by his 2 foundries, but did relativly poor other than that.  There is so much more I want to do on turn 3 than cast an artifact that does nothing till turn 4-6.
Yeah, the foundry is not so great. And I didn't even consider useing Tel-Jilad Defiance even though I opened two in both the prereleases I went to. I mean, I didn't go infect either time or even really consider green, but they were in my pile of unplayable cards. After reading that I might reconsider.

Also, Perilous Myr and Necropede were two of the best cards in my deck, even without a single other infect creature. Being able to 2 for 1 your opponent if they attack you with something non evasion is just killer. 

Oh, and Arc Trail, while obviously good is underrated I think. It's way better than people think.
And the cleric really shuts down infect...
Grow old or die trying.
White is the most powerful colour in the set for sealed. Hands down. Went to two pre-re's, the first one I got top 8 with a blue/white weenie deck (pulled to Perelious Myr but couldn't fit them in over my 2 Glint Hawk and 2 Glint Hawk Idol). Glint Hawk Idol is AMAZING turn one when you have Chimeric Mass.

Second one, I played black/green infect game one, lost, swapped black for white, and won the other 3 games. Sadly not good enough for top 8 because of tiebreakers. But white is THE colour.

(at)MrEnglish22

I agree with aussie_player ---->


(I'm surprised that Steve dismissed white so readily.  It seems to me to be one of the stronger colours in the pool.  Maybe it was due to the absence of infect, if that's what he went in wanting to play?)

      I seemed to have gotten lucky with my natural affinity (no pun intended) to this set.  I went 3-0-1 in draft and 6-0 in sealed last saturday (both 100% mwp) and he really missed on white.  In draft I played white splash blue and in sealed I played red with one white spell (Angel).  If I would have had his white in my sealed I would have definattely played more than one white spell.

But sometimes we all go in a little biased to what we want to play and kind of force the issue.

I think the main reason the poison deck didn't work out was a lack of Proliferate.  I played black/green myself and went 6-0 for first place, but I had 2 Contagion Clasps.  Here's my deck and card pool:
tappedout.net/mtg-decks/scars-prerelease...

Tangle Angler was probably my most unexpected hero.  It often helped my other poison creatures get in for the win by forcing multiple creatures to block it, and it often lived through the combat.
I wound up loving one card that everyone told me was going to be terrible. Liquimetal Coating. All of my friends at the tournament told me that it wasnt worth it's casting cost, but when I combined it with Hoard-Smelter Dragon and the ability to play tricks with Dispense Justice and other Metalcraft cards, it definately pulled it's weight. It's nice to stop someone's Putrefax with a good old Shatter. Unfortunately, I dont think it'll see much play in Constructed.
^^ Liquimetal Coating may indeed "combine well" with Hoard-Smelter Dragon, but given that an unanswered Hoard-Smelter is going to auto-win you pretty much any game of Limited magic in this environment, that's not an ESPECIALLY good reason to run it :D
Basically, what I'm saying is: Steve is supposed to be better at Magic than me, but I gained exactly zero insight from this article. That should not happen. Either Scars limited is really easy to analyze, or Steve was lazy on this article.


This. 
An important concept that I think needs to be discussed about SoM sealed as compared to other sealed formats is color depth. In a format where, on average, more than a third of your pool is comprised of colorless cards that could potentially go in any deck, color depth, while still very relevant, loses importance compared to other sealed formats. This means you have to focus a little more on color quality. A color with less playable cards but cards of better quality will often be the right one to combine with your numerous artifacts. With that said, I don't think Steve made a deckbuilding error in regard to that concept, since I think dismissing white and red was correct considering that black and green do have better straight card quality than both of those, mainly in the form of quality removal. Blue, on the other hand... More on that further down.

The kind of depth that one must examine closer is what I'd call "synergy depth" : you must look at your pool and wonder which of the 3 main families of decks it better supports. There's the Infect decks, the metalcraft/artifact-based decks, and the kind of decks that are neither. That last category includes the semi-metalcraft decks with fewer artifacts and only artifact-related cards that are fine without Metalcraft being online, and the decks based on the non-infect, non-artifact based creatures that are mainly found in green and black. Steve's second build is obviously of that last category. Determining in which of those categories the best deck your pool can produce must obviously be based on how much you can support Infect and Metalcraft. The category of deck that's based on neither, the "non-synergistic" one, is the correct thing to do when you realize that your deck cannot make either of the two synergistic types work, and so that you must avoid cards that are good only in dedicated Infect or Metalcraft decks. After that, you can check whether you're trying to be more aggressive or controlling.

Applying that theory to Steve's pool, I find that the best deck should be indeed be in the third category, but should be an aggressive UB deck instead of a GB one. It would not be based on artifact synergy, but it would use a lot of the artifacts simply because they fit the beatdown plan, with the added bonus of abusing the two Riddlesmiths and making Lumengrid Drake work.  Many people here are pointing out that Steve overlooked his white, but to me, the color that was criminally ignored here is blue. Most of his blue cards are highly playable or outright stellar, with the possible exception of Plated Seastrider which is a little color intensive for something you'd want to play early, and Screeching Silcaw, which I consider as a strong sideboard card because it's a very good blocker against Infect decks.

I believe Black is the best secondary color here for its removal and good non-infect creatures. Dismissing Infect, green has very little going for it except for the two Slice in Twain. It would pain me a lot to not play them, but they're not splashable here with only one Copper Myr to help.

So the build I would end up with is a very aggressive, evasive and tempo-oriented UB. I wanted to play Quicksilver Gargantuan, which is perhaps the most impressive bomb in the pool, and/or splash for Galvanic Blast, but I fear they would hurt the very low curve and consistency of the deck. I'd play 16 lands and the two on-color Myr.

My list :


Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
Some thoughts on cards that seem underestimated...

Neurok Invisimancer : That guy is a common Phantom Warrior with the bonus that he makes an other creature unblockable.  He's good in every kind of deck with a lot of blue, including Infect-based ones. He's a great bearer for equipment that boosts power. His only weak point is his low thoughness, but with his ETB ability, he usually does some work even if he's killed cheaply. A superb common.

Golem Artisan : That golem is an uncommon bomb that fits in every archetype possible. You have one, you play it, except in Infect decks with too few artifact infecters and no Tainted Strike or Grafted Exoskeleton. I can understand why they're not in Steve's Infect build, but that's an exception.

Tumble Magnet : I really want to know what Steve thinks of this card, seeing that he had one and  didn't play it in either of his builds. It's true that the 3-uses-only drawback must be taken into account, but still, it's a three mana Icy Manipulator with no mana activation cost, for hell's sake. In a very controlling deck that has many removal options, no proliferate and no way to reset the counters, I could consider leaving it in the sideboard. Otherwise, auto-include. In an agressive deck, infect or not, tapping a blocker three times for so low a cost is bonkers. You have to use the counters correctly, of course; you can't just tap something every turn like you would with a Manipulator or a Blinding Mage.

I wound up loving one card that everyone told me was going to be terrible. Liquimetal Coating. All of my friends at the tournament told me that it wasnt worth it's casting cost, but when I combined it with Hoard-Smelter Dragon and the ability to play tricks with Dispense Justice and other Metalcraft cards, it definately pulled it's weight. It's nice to stop someone's Putrefax with a good old Shatter. Unfortunately, I dont think it'll see much play in Constructed.

Liquimetal Coating is a very interesting card. My opinion of it is that enabling Metalcraft is not in and of itself good enough a reason to play it, because once you have two other artifacts, you'd rather have any other artifact. However, if you have artifact removal spells in your deck, turning them into Vindicates is awesome, and also, it makes red cards that have you sacrifice your artifacts able to eat anything including lands. A combination of all of those in a red-white metacraft deck makes the Coating incredible, as I could notice in my first prerelease deck. But I repeat that I would discourage anyone to play it for Metalcraft alone.
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A

Wow, my first thought was that white was much stronger than blue, but after examining the cards a bit more closely I'm not too sure.  Most of the blue cards have white equivalents, so it's interesting to compare...


  • Bonds of Quicksilver vs Revoke Existence: Both are conditional removal spells that do different things.  The blue card is creature removal, but weaker than the black removal we're already playing.  The white card removes a range of additional cards (including enchantments), so I think it's a better pick.

  • Lumengrid Drake vs Glimmerpoint Stag: A 2/2 flyer vs a 3/3 vigilance creature with a very similar ability.  The blue card has evasion and is better when used on an opponent's creature, but is smaller, more expensive, only turns on with metalcraft, and is worse when used on one of my creatures.  I think I prefer the white card, but probably not by much.

  • Sky-Eel School vs Razor Hippogriff: Both 3/3 flyers for 5, but the white card's ability is much more appealing to me.

  • Riddlesmith vs Salvage Scout: Both small creatures included purely because of their abilities.  The blue cards abiltiy is possibly better, but the creature is fragile and the ability might never be triggered.  The white card's ability will always be triggered.

  • Neurok Invisimancer vs Sunspear Shikari: Both are creatures with 2 power.  The blue card will always do some damage and might do a lot, the white card can be very good but is much more conditional.  Blue is probably the better choice.

That leaves True Conviction vs the second Invisimancer.  True Conviction looks like a bomb, but it is much more difficult to cast, particularly with a number of double black cards that we also want to play.  The second Invisimancer might end up being a more consistent to punch through extra damage, but double strike and lifelink on all my creatures sounds pretty sweet if the game goes long...

I'd still probably play Black/White, but Black/Blue is a pretty similar build.  The inability for UB to deal with a pesky enchantment  or non-creature artifact would bother me, so BW for me.

Wow, my first thought was that white was much stronger than blue, but after examining the cards a bit more closely I'm not too sure.  Most of the blue cards have white equivalents, so it's interesting to compare...
  • Bonds of Quicksilver vs Revoke Existence: Both are conditional removal spells that do different things.  The blue card is creature removal, but weaker than the black removal we're already playing.  The white card removes a range of additional cards (including enchantments), so I think it's a better pick.



I agree on that comparison. After thinking about it, I'm not even sure I'd play the Bonds in the UB deck I built, as it's not offensive enough. You can't use it to deal with an untapped blocker. It's also four mana.


  • Lumengrid Drake vs Glimmerpoint Stag: A 2/2 flyer vs a 3/3 vigilance creature with a very similar ability.  The blue card has evasion and is better when used on an opponent's creature, but is smaller, more expensive, only turns on with metalcraft, and is worse when used on one of my creatures.  I think I prefer the white card, but probably not by much.



More expensive? Both are four mana and the Drake is less color-intensive. Also, evasion is king in this format. However, I'd agree than on straight card-vs-card basis, the Stag is a little better. But you must not compare colors only on that kind of basis. You must also consider what kind of deck archetype you're building towards, slow or fast, aggro or control. The Drake is the better aggro/tempo card. As for metalcraft, the deck I suggest has 11 artifacts.



Again, the Hippogriff is the better card on a card-vs-card basis, but you must compare with a game plan in mind. When you're aggro and not control, an ability like the Hippogriff's becomes less relevant because you likely won't want to wait for a good artifact to end up in your graveyard and just want to cast it ASAP to begin attacking with it. An ability like the School's, which filters useless lands and thus helps keeping the pressure, is often more relevant in aggro.


  • Riddlesmith vs Salvage Scout: Both small creatures included purely because of their abilities.  The blue cards abiltiy is possibly better, but the creature is fragile and the ability might never be triggered.  The white card's ability will always be triggered.

I wholeheartedly disagree here. A 2/1 for two mana is a miles better body than a 1/1 for one mana, especially when you're trying to be aggressive, and Riddlesmith's ability is just INSANE in a deck with 10+ artifacts. The Scout's ability will not always be profitably activated if your kind of deck doesn't block much with artifact creatures and doesn't give time to the opponent to destroy good artifacts of yours. I can't believe that any serious player would not call Riddlesmith the better card by far. Also, you have two of them and just one Salvage Scout.


  • Neurok Invisimancer vs Sunspear Shikari: Both are creatures with 2 power.  The blue card will always do some damage and might do a lot, the white card can be very good but is much more conditional.  Blue is probably the better choice.

To be my own devil's advocate here, I think Steve's pool has enough good equipment to make the Shikari very good. That's a plus for white. But again, you have two of the Invisimancer and as you said yourself, it's less conditional.

That leaves True Conviction vs the second Invisimancer.  True Conviction looks like a bomb, but it is much more difficult to cast, particularly with a number of double black cards that we also want to play.  The second Invisimancer might end up being a more consistent to punch through extra damage, but double strike and lifelink on all my creatures sounds pretty sweet if the game goes long...

True Conviction is an other strong point for White indeed, but it's so mana intensive... Without white mana fixing (Gold Myr is the only kind of common mana myr the pool doesn't have, sadly), you'd need to play 10+ plains to support it, but the rest of the white and the needs of the other color you'd choose to play, which will have double mana symbols costs, tells you you shouldn't be playing that many plains.

I'd still probably play Black/White, but Black/Blue is a pretty similar build.  The inability for UB to deal with a pesky enchantment  or non-creature artifact would bother me, so BW for me.

No, they're very different builds in regards to game plan. The UB deck I suggest is pure aggro, while the WB build this pool offers is much slower and controlling. I believe it can also be a good deck, and a possible sideboard option depending on what you're facing. But I'm confident UB is the more powerful main deck here. That's only my opinion, though.
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
Basically, what I'm saying is: Steve is supposed to be better at Magic than me, but I gained exactly zero insight from this article. That should not happen. Either Scars limited is really easy to analyze, or Steve was lazy on this article.


This. 


This +1.  I mean, who the hell didn't see how good perilous myr was?  That's like analysing M11 when it first came out and going "Doom blade is a sleeper card!"  The lens was also an obviously strong card.

Heya MadMage... I'm not sure that the UB build is any quicker than the BW build, and I wouldn't call the white build particularly controlling.  They come out at much the same speed from what I can see, and both are looking to attack fairly early.  True Conviction (if you get to play it) gives the white build a bit more firepower in a long game, but that doesn't make it slow and controlling.


The more I think about Neurok Invisimancer, the more I like him.  The two Invisimancers might be the cards that sway me towards the UB build you've suggested, but I still prefer the white.  I don't know that it's significantly better, but it's the lack of answers in UB to enchantments or non-creature artifacts that scares me.  A lone Revoke Existence might not be enough, but at least it's something.


Now... about Riddlesmith.  If you're looking at using him as an attacker, he's going to die pretty quickly (any old myr could do it), and his ability isn't going to do very much at all.  If you hold him back, he's not doing much for your aggressive strategy and his extra point of power is irrelevant.  Either way, he's vulnerable to any sort of ping.  He's not a bad card, particularly if he's played on Turn 2, but I do think you're seriously over-valuing him - everything has to go right for him to provide the kind of value he's capable of.

And... about Salvage Scout.  I would only ever play him later in the game when there's an artifact that I want to recur.  There are lots of potential targets - an artifact creature that has died, an artifact that I've sacrified for some benefit (Golden Urn? Moriok Replica?), or an artifact that I want to reset (Chimeric Mass? Tumble Magnet?).  The best thing is that he will always be able to recur an artifact, and if I get to keep him long enough to block something then that's an a bonus.  Is he better than Riddlesmith?  Yeah, I kind of think so....


Heya MadMage... I'm not sure that the UB build is any quicker than the BW build, and I wouldn't call the white build particularly controlling.  They come out at much the same speed from what I can see, and both are looking to attack fairly early.  True Conviction (if you get to play it) gives the white build a bit more firepower in a long game, but that doesn't make it slow and controlling.


What makes the BW build slower is the lower number of 2 and 3-drops, and the inclusion of cards like the Stag and the Griffon which effects are much better when you time them than when you just curve them. Salvage Scout is also not very aggressive.

I don't know that it's significantly better, but it's the lack of answers in UB to enchantments or non-creature artifacts that scares me.  A lone Revoke Existence might not be enough, but at least it's something.

You don't really need answers to the very few bomby enchantments or non-creature, non-equipment artifacts of the format if you bash so fast that they're dead before their turn 6.

Now... about Riddlesmith.  If you're looking at using him as an attacker, he's going to die pretty quickly (any old myr could do it). If you hold him back, he's not doing much for your aggressive strategy and his extra point of power is irrelevant.  Either way, he's vulnerable to any sort of ping.  He's not a bad card, particularly if he's played on Turn 2, but I do think you're seriously over-valuing him - everything has to go right for him to provide the kind of value he's capable of.

You're forgetting that the pool has the tools to give him evasion cheaply. Also, I would never hold him back if I can make a trade with an other 2-mana-or-more creature, especially if he looted for me even just once. You seriously under-valuing the power of a 2-power 2-drop in an aggressive deck, and much more importantly, you're seriously under-valuing the power of the draw ability when it has no cost at all.

And... about Salvage Scout.  I would only ever play him later in the game when there's an artifact that I want to recur.  There are lots of potential targets - an artifact creature that has died, an artifact that I've sacrified for some benefit (Golden Urn? Moriok Replica?), or an artifact that I want to reset (Chimeric Mass? Tumble Magnet?).  The best thing is that he will always be able to recur an artifact, and if I get to keep him long enough to block something then that's an a bonus.

That's all good, but that's not an aggressive plan.

Is he better than Riddlesmith?  Yeah, I kind of think so...

Oh my... Let's just say I'll leave it at that.


Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A

Hmmm... the UB build and WB build have a similar number of 2 and 3 drops...

...Remember that there'd probably be a few additional cheap artifact creatures in the WB build.  I'd definitely be taking advantage of the Myr Galvanizer (which wasn't in your build), supported by one or two off-coloured myr to help bring the 4 and 5 drops on a bit earlier.  The artifact recursion available to white makes this a little more attractive, and also makes attacking and/or trading with cheap artifacts a little easier.

The biggest difference is the inclusion of Neurok Invisimanser, which I admit is a big boon to an aggressive deck - 2 of them could knock out the opponents score down very quickly, and even just one of them is going to put the opponent on a clock if they don't have any answers.

And yes, we are definitely disagreeing on Riddlesmith, but at least we do agree that black should have been paired with something non-green

You know, I've been thinking about it...

Untamed Might would be AWESOME with Neurok Invisimancer and the blue flyers, and would be very easy to splash.  Imagine a surprise forest coming down in the middle of the game, leading to a surprise lethal Neurok attack!  A slightly heavier green commitment could even bring Slice in Twain into the picture.

Maybe a UBG build is the most evil of them all.... 

Forget what I said about white... I'm changing my vote to UBG, and I'd even include both copies of Riddlesmith ;) 


To answer both of your posts at once...

The problem is that white's 3-drops are vanilla 1/5's. Those are fine stats for a controlling deck, but not for an aggressive one. I really should have mentionned that Loxodon Wayfarer issue earlier to help my point... As for Myr Galvaniser, a couple mana myr in a deck really isn't enough to make it worth playing. You really need more Myr, like 5-6+ of them, for it to be any good. Otherwise, most of the time, you'll just make one 1/1 mana producer a 2/2 mana producer.

As for your UBG idea, Untamed Might is sexy, I admit, but not worthy of a splash IMO. Not when your two main colors have multiple double-color spells. I did consider splashing Galvanic Blast, because there's a BR dual as well as an Iron Myr in the pool, and even then, I ditched it for the sake of consistency and to not play too many 1/1's for 2.  I certainly would not try to splash Might with only a single Copper Myr to help.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
Gosh, I wouldn't be playing loxodon wayfarer! There'd no need with all the black and artifact three drops to fill out the curve with him. Anyway, you've already convinced me that blue is probably better.

I think You're wrong about Untamed Might. It's a very easy splash, even given that blue and black both have some double colour cards. It works best later in the game, so one or two forests to supplement the copper myr makes it a viable inclusion. The up side of playing it in a deck with lots of evasion would justify it for me.

Slice in Twain is also very good, but probably not worth supporting the added colour commitment. They could always be brought in if the opponent has a bomb artifact or enchantment that we'd otherwise have no way of dealing with.

Galvanic Blast is also worth considering, but we already have removal in the deck - it's not worth splashing red just for 2 (maybe 4) points of damage.

As for Myr Galvaniser, a couple mana myr in a deck really isn't enough to make it worth playing. You really need more Myr, like 5-6+ of them, for it to be any good. Otherwise, most of the time, you'll just make one 1/1 mana producer a 2/2 mana producer.





Whoops, I forgot to respond to this... 

You're more than happy to play 2 copies of Moriok Reaver which is, and always will be, a vanilla 3/2 for 3.  Good card, and good for the deck.

Myr Galvanizer is at worst a 2/2 for 3, so sacrifices a single point of power.  But it's also an artifact, so helps reach the metalcraft threshold.  It can also be a target for your Golem Artisan, which might be very relevant in the late game.  With one of your other myrs on the board, you get as much extra power on the board as the Reaver, plus an extra toughness, spread over two bodies.  The ability to untap and block with a 2/2 mana myr is also an ability that might be relevant in some games.

I'm not saying it's the better card, or that it is a must inclusion.  But just because there's not 5-6 other myr in the deck, doesn't mean he's not worth considering.