Awww, reverse bracket broke my link. :|

awesome. everyone loves koolaid. i playtested a bit and i really like how the krasis and the druid performed. i don't know if we want to get rid of those

I'd be in favor of cutting Scab Clan Giant, which means we might also be able to cut a land. I like the Druid because even if we draw it late game it still has relevance as a consistent damage producer. If we cut a land and have an extra slot I would consider Sunspire Gatekeepers.

we could also go less black. go to my page for that

What if we did:

• -1 Renounce the Guilds
• -1 Plains
• -1 Maze Abomination

We have all the cluestones for ramp, and the deathtouch seems a little less useful.

@TheHorse Why would you want to cut Scab Clan? He's like one of the best cards that we've drafted.

Also, this may sound unorthadox, but what about running 43 cards with 19 land? Seems like an odd combination, but I've been number crunching and that's about the equivalent of running 26.5 lands in 60 card deck which means you have about a 60% chance of dropping a 5th land on turn 5. I can't think of any deck size and land count combo that gets us to 26.5 other then 43 and 19.

43 cards does reduce the odds of some other draws such as that we will only have a 71% chance to have a cluestone by turn 3 instead of a 74% with 40 cards. Likewise our odds of drawing a 5cmc creature by T4 falls from 70% to 66%.

Just something to think about. Unlike constructed your maximum deck size doesn't have to be the minimum. In drafting it's alright to increase your max size if the purpose for doing so is to adjust the odds of your mana base (which is why I highly suggest 41 cards with 18 land (26.3 lands in a 60 card deck) over 40 cards with 17 land (25.5 lands in a 60 card deck)).

I have a sample of the deck here
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/dtest-4319/

Also, if we have the time and people are up for it making 2 decks, one for on the play and another for on the draw will give us an additional slight advantage (mostly just when on the play you may not need as many lands in your deck depending on the odds and can run additional threats).

I dislike Scab Clan, at the best he's a 4/5 removal spell, at the worst he's nothing because he throws himself into a bigger creature on accident/remains dead in the hand. We are light on removal so it's not like we'll be taking out their bigger creatures and if they don't have any larger creatures on the board that probably means we're already ahead on board position.

What bigger creatures?

I counted 6 creatures at best that Scab slams into and dies without killing and they are all mostly rares that we may not even see.

What he can do though is destroy a monster that the opponent is holding back with because he wants to keep it alive for it's special effect like Tithe Drinker.

or we cast him after combat to kill that bigger creature

Both of your uses of him are ignoring the fact that it's random, which is the part I dislike. Don't forget the few death touch creatures as well as bigger creatures.

I'm for the Giant. He causes collateral.

He can't outright kill 16 out of 75 creatures in DGM. Of those 16, around five or so are rares that we'd probably want to post-combat sac him to get rid of anyway. Two are deathtouchers (Korozda Gorgon & Maze Abomination ), which once again we'd need to get rid of anyway (The last / third one is Master of Cruelties , which is another trade I'd make). The nine left are wall like in nature, in which case he breaks a speed-bump post-combat. The pre-combats are officially reserved for things he can kill (And if he forces a shenanigan, then that's one less the attack crew sees).

As for his random nature, it gets better the less creatures they have (aka the more I'm winning). That said, if they have a lot of creatures chances are that I both really need a blocker and can probably take on of them out. I'll probably get both two, since (not counting deathtouch or evolve) only nine creatures can outright kill him back.

How are we feeling about Supersun's proposal of staying at 43? (Basically trading Renounce for a Mountain)

I like the odds in it, especially since it wouldn't hurt the Skeleton.

Also, while it is one of those combo dreams, if we have a Maze Abomination out when we drop him he destroys whatever he attacks :D (barring Tajic)

Just a note though, you may not want to run the 43/19 if you know you will be on the draw since 26.5 lands on the draw might be a bit much. If you know you will be on the draw next game it might be worth sideboarding to a different max/land combo.

Trust me, the cluestones were totally the best picks.

Oh, no arguing that, KrazyCaley. It gave us options with our ramp. :D

I'm not against a general 43 start strategy, and then cutting a land and the three worst cards in the matchup (or somesuch like that) for games two and three. Plus, if Renounce is in the sideboard, it'll be slightly more relevant sided in post-trimming.

Also, we're getting towards the end of our deck building time. Can probably push it up until mid Saturday or so (Assuming KC doesn't yell at me), just because I'd like to hear more from you all.

Edited the deck to currently be -1 Renounce the Guilds and +1 Mountain . On the 43 plan, Renounce the Guilds has less chance of showing up in the early game, where it'd backfire on us the most. Also allows scouting to see if it's worth running against a given opponent.

If we have opposition to this, here's my proposal for a proper 40, based on no math whatsoever (I leave that to Supersun's fine skills):
-1 Plains , -1 Maze Sentinel , -1 Alive / Well
My rational: While I want as much white as I can, cutting a red or green source could hurt the ability to drop the lower-costed critters early on. Sentinel, because we have two and maintaining deathtouch keeps up variety and helps push through opposing walls (that said, alternatively we could cut the swamp and the Aberration). As for Alive / Well , it did the least of the four drops.

Thoughts?

Oh, after conferring with Supersun a little, I'd probably instead do -1 Plains , -1 Forest , and -1 of either two above, leaning towards Alive / Well .

i really hate how slow this deck is but there really isn't too much we can do... yeah, i guess the best way to go is with the -1 plains, -1 forest, and -1 alive/well

Yeah, not the greatest stand-alone format. Bombs aside, half the creatures are walls and the other half are stopped by them. Breeds a slow game where either the combat management or better big guys prevail.

DMG x3 is probably going to be slower then most formats anyway. I can't really see many aggro decks being successful where 2/2 bears will be getting +1ed by White and Black Gatekeepers all game.

Makethe changes? I think that will be our final deck

Made. We still have until whenever I get the cards on MtGO to make mainboard changes, just in case.