Community

Bloodghast isn't bad, but not being able to block doesn't help its cause either.

Though it is fantastic in older formats though(Zendikar gave a dredge a huge boost in power)

Bloodghast is good, but only early game. Late game, most decks will have stalled them with a few creatures. Having a 2/1 creature that comes back is amazing. It is a small threat if you only have one out, but in multiples your opponent will have to deal with them before they start hitting hard. Late game, (T5+) they are not useful, but up until then they're pretty amazing. 

T1: Swamp, Vampire Lacerator
T2: Lose 1 life, Swamp, Bloodghast, Swing 2. They're at 16.
T3: Lose 1 life, Swamp, Kickered Gatekeeper of Malakir to deal with their creature. Swing 4. They're at 12.
T4: Lose 1 life, Swamp, Sign in Blood on them, putting them at 10, Bloodghast, swing 8. They're at 2. Next turn: GG. 

The detractors have no response to the argument that Vampire decks comprised three of the Top 16, two running Bloodghast. The other is more control than the Vampire aggro being discussed here.

Since we know Vampires didn't comprise the entire field besides those thirteen other Top 16 decks, the statistics fly in the face of the "Bloodghast is bad" argument, and even more the "Vampires is bad" argument.

Of course Jund is better at the moment. That's not the question. The point is any deck that represents three-sixteenths can't be considered "bad," by the guidelines typically applied to Magic. A Drudge Skeletons deck is bad; no one plays it. Vampires are played and three go to Top 16, this deck is not bad.

I just don't understand how you can say a deck that has a solid representation in the biggest post-rotation Standard tournament is bad. You don't have to admit it's the best deck, because it's not, but no "bad" deck has that kind of representation. 

And the same goes for Bloodghast. Top 8'ing a 300+ player tournament bad cards do not.

Oct 14, 2009 -- 8:31PM, Glux wrote:

It doesn't matter how "good" a deck is in terms of that tournament's placing.  When there were that many Vampire decks are played, some of them are bound to God Draw their way into the T16.  Magic isn't all about skill, luck is involved too.

This is just not true, statistically or to anyone whose played competitive magic. The odds of "god-drawing" all the way into Top 8 is up there with winning the Powerball your first time out. This is just an asinine statement.

And while Magic has an element of luck, there are Magic "pros" for a reason. Are they the luckiest guys in the world? It's a skill game, Jo. (kudos if you name the movie this line is from).

The point is no one "lucks" their way into the top 8 of a 300 person tournament. And certainly 3 people don't luck their way into Top 16.

It doesn't matter how "good" a deck is in terms of that tournament's placing

Actually, this is how "good" decks are defined, at least in the world of sane people who understand what a dictionary is.

I did some testing with Bloodghast in a R/B Aggro deck that I made earlier this week.  I was pleasantly surprised with Bloodghast's performance vs. Jund Aggro, Naya Aggro and White Weenie.

First off, I'd ignore the fact that he's a vampire completely.  It's certainly a nice perk if you use Nocturnus, but since I didn't run a vampire deck (though it did include several efficient vamps such as Nighthawk and Gatekeeper) it's not relevant.

Bloodghast is good in a deck that clears the way very quickly and allows the beats in.  My deck packed a lot of cheaper removal (Lightning Bolt, Terminate, Gatekeeper) and took out most things early game above toughness 2.  By contrast, many MB vampire decks are using Tendrils as primary removal, but that's besides the point.  There are a lot of 2-power creatures at the 2 mana level that have more in the way of offensive power going for them, but Bloodghast is the most resilient of them all.  So long as you can provide a beating outlet that doesn't include high-toughness creatures, he's excellent.  I used him to great effect vs. Jund/Naya aggro, where the only things I had to clear away were the Thrinaxes and Knights of the Reliquary (Broodmates never materialized).

Vs. White Weenie, Bloodghast was more disappointing.  First strike toasts it, no question.  However, if you're able to race it, Bloodghast can force your opponent to keep a knight back to avoid damage while you win the race either with spot removal or Nighthawk air force.  This is especially true when the opponent has a Planeswalker to protect.  Bloodghast dies to Elspeth soldier tokens if it attacks on its own, but it's another threat that has to be answered and, barring PtE, always has to be answered.  It sucks on its own, but works well as a threat amplifier.

Unless the opponent (the WW player in my test) uses Day of Judgment.  Then the Bloodghast comes into its own.

3 Misc. Things: Bloodghast vs. Jund, if you have better cards for the situation, is excellent at avoiding card disadvantage from an enemy Blightning.  And a Bloodghast with a sac. benefitter works very well.  The deck I mentioned used Hellspark Elemental and Bloodghast in tandem with Quest for the Gravelord to make big zombies very quickly.  Finally, just because of its resiliance, Bloodghast routinely draws PtE.  I'll concede that there are certainly a lot of creatures that have better combat quality than Bloodghast (Hexmage, Nighthawk), but the psychology of "I've gotta take out the ghast in a way that makes it stay gone" absorbs more PtE's than you might think and ensures your betters survive.

Very short summary: It doesn't work well on its own and loses to most other creatures.  However, it's amazing as both a threat multiplier and insurance against sweepers, making it a solid addition to a fast deck.