OK, everyone's least favorite and most controversial deck! Personally I have a blast playing this deck, though no one ever has fun playing against it. It was on the shelf for about a month while Single Set was really fun, but with the release of the two latest BP's, my group has gotten back into the 3-of-everything scene.

I'm definitely expecting my current list (and some of the odd additions/omissions in it) to be scrutinized by at least a couple guys from Seattle, but ddm has asked many times for decklists to test (usually to go up against thrower), and I'm hoping he does try it out before knocking it completely. And I can totally take it if they come back with, "yeah, that card stinks just like I thought it would."

The major changes made to the deck came from Order in Chaos. Two of those and a fog is a Soft Lock, hands down... soft because it can be broken/interrupted.

Once I fit in a set of OIC's I wanted to find a way to make them better. That's where the dumbest card in the deck found itself being called upon. You'll see it in the deck list

I also wanted to try something else that doesn't really seem like an improvement, but I do prefer it so far... And that's replacing Abandoned Mines with Long Winter.

Anyway -- here's what I'm working with currently:

25 Tactics:

3x Innovation

3x Long Winter

3x Order in Chaos

3x Second Sight

3x Master Rune of Valaya

2x Master Rune of Spite

3x Flames of the Phoenix

3x Gifts of Aenarion

2x Reap What's Sown

25 Supports:

3x Warpstone Excavation

3x Contested Village

3x City Gates

3x Dwarf/High Elf Alliance

2x Keystone Forge

3x Mining Tunnels

2x Repeater Bolt Thrower

3x Treasure Vaults

3x Contested Stronghold

:-D

http://deckbox.org/sets/3095

Well... er... you have reduced me to responding with an image macro.

f7eleven said:

Not big on Master Rune of Spite here. Also, Ancestral Tomb > City Gates imho.

I guess I could try this but I would be surprised if it works well.

Going to echo the /facepalm for second sight man I had to deckbox that one, thought it was the 5-card pseudo-impulse at first...

Agree that MROS isnt getting it done for me. I might board a couple to bring in vs. Skaven but considering dwarves are built to ignore that card (since, you know, they play it) I wouldnt maindeck it as long as dwarves are in the meta, which they most assuredly are given the latest battlepacks.

Honestly I think you're trying too hard to get the fog engine to work. IMO, purely based on theory for now, the deck pretty naturally draws into its defenses as long as it doesnt stumble when setting up a draw/resource base. So, setting up the engine seems most important to me, and sacrificing some consistency there seems poor. Clamatius and I are testing a couple new ideas for the thrower list this week, so we'll see if we end up close to this list after some tuning.

At the start of the game, a full set of Long Winter + Order In Chaos + Second Sight are an awful lot of cards that do basically nothing. Maybe you can get away with 1 of them. Maybe. I think OiC is the best one of those, but generally if I get to the mid game with thrower I win anyway.

In short, I like cards with hammers on them more than any of those. In Magic, tutoring is important because drawing cards is so hard. In WH:I, just throwing a spare Abandoned Mine into quest draws you a ton of cards.

I played a few games with a Destro thrower list today and I did not like it at all - you have to dedicate so many slots to defense that you don't have enough cards with hammers on them to build up the massive number of resources required to actually win.

Gonna have to go with the Seattle crew on this one. To be completely honest, I was hoping to save the Order in Chaos "tech" for Worlds if I play Bolt Thrower but I guess the cat's out of the bag now, heh. The card is unreal good. Not just to recur fogs, but to get back Innovation is just absolutely insane in this deck.

I think you're trying to get too cute with the deck. Second Sight seems pretty terrible in the deck in my opinion and definitely shouldn't be played over High Elf's Disdain. Also, like Clamatius said, I too think Ancestral Tomb > City Gates.

Interesting take on the deck though.

- SF

Alright, down to business. Personally, if I was going with trying the Order in Chaos setup, I'd start with this more standard setup:

-3 Long Winter

+3 Abandoned Mine

-2 Master Rune of Spite

+2 High Elf's Disdain

-3 Second Sight

+1 Bolt Thrower

+1 Temple of Vaul / Reap What's Sown (either)

+1 Keystone Forge

-3 City Gates

+3 Ancestral Tomb

Having only 2 copies of Thrower worries me a bit since I have died several times to having the final copies of a key card (e.g. Flames, Thrower) in the last few cards of the deck. I do not like Long Winter vs. Abandoned Mine since 6 scout DE could see play and that is actually a threat without the Mines.

I'd probably ditch Reap What's Sown (or at least 1 of the remaining 2) since it's free cards for your opponent while you have to pay the costs associated with it - not a great trade-off, all things considered, unless you're trying to get the last few cards you think you might need for a win - in that scenario I suppose it's fairly decent.

No doubt about it, though, Order in Chaos is a nifty card for the good guys. Some cool stuff can be done with it.

Clamatius said:

What cards did you play? Orc would be 12 (LC, Pickings, Foot, Vomit) against 9 in Order (Valaya, Gifts, Phonix).

@Wytefang: If Reap What's Sown is also drawing your opponent cards, you're either playing the card incorrectly or they're also playing a Bolt Thrower deck. Realistically, you are Reaping for around 5 cards and it's highly doubtful that your opponent keeps up with you on Developments. Honestly, I've never, not even once, had my opponent draw cards with my Reaps. It's just highly unlikely.

For reference, and not trying to derail f7eleven's thread, but here's my list that's on my short list for Worlds:

OiC BT

Units:

Tactics:
3 Innovation
3 Master Rune of Valaya
3 Gifts of Aenerion
3 Flames of the Phoenix
3 Order in Chaos
1 Master Rune of Spite
3 Reap What's Sown
2 High Elf's Disdain

Support:
3 Dwarf / HE Alliance
3 Warpstone Excavation
3 Contested Village
2 Keystone Forge
3 Ancestral Tomb
3 Mining Tunnels
3 Repeater Bolt Thrower
3 Treasure Vaults
3 Contested Stronghold
3 Abandoned Mine

I still think Master Rune of Spite is better than Judgement of Verena so I'll go with that as my miser 1-of board sweeper. It's more effective vs Skaven at least. In testing, I really haven't needed it so it could be cut for a miser 1-of support card even. Maybe the new 3 cost HE support that lets you gain a resource every time you play a spell (for loyalty costs and because there actually are a ton of spells in the deck.) Derricksburg Forge is also an option in the deck I think.

Lots of ways you can go with the deck but playing Order in Chaos before a Reap is pretty unreal. Also, playing it to get back Innovation and then drawing a card with Mining Tunnels is also disgusting.

- SF

ShubFan27 said:

I think maybe f7 was thinking Order in Chaos -> Second Sight as a similar tactic to the Reap/Mining Tunnels recursion trick.

I was hoping to try some Order in Chaos tech at worlds too, but it is dawning on me that it is rather impractical (too many tactics and/or bad first turns). I might be able to figure it out though before Saturday.

Going to be a fun event ^^

- dut

So Ancestral Tomb is really better than City Gates? Are you still playing on a High Elf board?

The only reason I like Second Sight is to get your OiC'd card from the top of your deck to your hand. And it's harmless without the OiC; it's just like running 47 cards. I'm assuming no one has tried them out.

I played some more last night and am switching Long Winter back to Abandoned Mines, though I still think I want a single Long Winter in the deck.

I had cut a Reap because there were many times where I was drawing three cards a turn and then another from a Mining Tunnel in play, and you'd get 2-5 Fogs/Wogs in your hand and not want to discard them. That plus my developments weren't getting as high since cutting Wake the Mountain. AND, when you draw multiple Reap's it's always the first thing you play as a development (unless you're hiding cards from scouts).

I was never playing the Disdain's either. They felt like a safety net that I never needed. Though, for such a large tournament as World's, running two is probably best.

Does anybody have a list that uses the Dwarf board and runs DCC's? I'm excited about incorporating Dwarves first turn explosiveness into this deck.

Thinking about Long Winter brings up an question for me. When is the X on Bolt actually compared to the amount developments? Is it fixed at paying the cost or is it an pointer looked at execution (sknitch is checking at execution again, but that is without x).
Example:
Bolt and 1 Dev in play.
Bolt 10 times put on stack.
Long Winter on stack.
Executing.
Dev removed.
10x1 damage or 10x0 damage?

If x is a pointer there is some nasty thing (the bolt machinegun):
Bolt and 0 dev in play.
Bolt 1000 times on stack (pay 0)
Waking the Mountain on stack
Executing
3 Devs in play
1000x3 damage for 6 resources?

General Long Winter might be good against a Bolt Thrower deck, if the Bolt player has no dev in the zone until the turns he want to fire. He plays one and you kill it.

Your concerns in order:

-City Gates vs. Ancestral Tomb: Gates costs 3 pretty much all the time where as Tomb costs 4 "most" of the time. Granted, you can play Gates on turn 1 and you can't realistically play Tomb, but it's MUCH better at any point in the game past the first, especially on turn 2 with an Innovation. Imagine this start (and yes, it happens enough to even merit the inclusion):

Turn 1: Alliance to Quest, Contested Village to Kingdom (Could also be a Warpstone to Quest and a 3 cost Support to Kingdom) + Development
Turn 2: Tomb to Kingdom, Develpment, Innovation into Contested Stronghold

Now, keep in mind that there are several possible cards that make this start possible, the only 2 cards that are must haves are the Innovation and the Tomb. If you happen to have an OiC, you can get back the Innovation and play it the following turn for even more Shenanigans. The play gets even better if you a Keystone Forge or a Mining Tunnels turn 1. I know that you're concerned about the double loyalty, but it's a risk/reward card that is definitely worth the squeeze.

-Second Sight: The card doesn't do anything. I understand why it's in the deck, but I'm telling you that it's superfluous. You don't need to cantrip into a card that you OiC for. You either play it at the start of your turn before you draw or you draw a card off of Mining Tunnels. I think that the card is 'too cute' and it's just not needed. Also, the BT deck is already very, very tight on cards so playing a "47 card deck" isn't something that I'm trying to do.

-Reap What's Sown: The reason I want 3 is because I think I always want to play one in a game. Because of that, I need to make sure i draw one. You typically don't need to play 2 in a game but I think you need 3 just to ensure that you have one when you need it. It's not every game you get multiple Mining Tunnels. I think games where that happens, it doesn't matter what cards you draw.

-Dwarf Board: Tried it. Didn't work. Flames and Gifts were too hard to cast reliably and Master Rune of Spite isn't near as good in the deck as I had previously thought. I was disappointed too, trust me.

- SF

ShubFan27 said:

Hmmm...fair points I suppose but you can't always control when you actually need to play this card, thus it'd pretty difficult for anyone to truly "play the card incorrectly." If you need the cards and your opponent has even a few developments down (not improbable) you just gave them free cards at the cost of your resources - just not a great trade, imho. Plus it's pretty clear that's how they balanced out this card too...so I imagine that it must be a punishment of sorts that does come into play because they try fairly hard not to put out broken cards if at all possible (leaving the whole WE debate out of this).

As a sidenote, and I do NOT mean this in a snarky way, Shubfan- but is there some reason in online forums and discusssions and debates relating to CCGs/LCGs that people always fall back on this trite, lame argument that "you must be doing it wrong if your results don't agree with mine?" It's really weird and it's not something I see with any other game genre's debates or disagreements online. It's such a flimsy, unconvincing argument or point to make.

@Jogo

Bolt Thrower doesn't exactly work like that. Here's what happens:

1 Dev + BT in the Battlefield. Player pays 1 to use BT. It resolves. Player 1 pays 1 to use BT. It resolves. Repeat, etc etc. So you see, you don't put 10 instances on the stack at the same time, you put 1 instance on the stack X amount of times and they resolve individually. So you can't Long Winter them to stop them because they can just use the BT in response to your Long Winter targeting the Dev. You could however use Long Winter on their Dev in response to them play the Bolt Thrower if they did so in that order.

I'm 99% sure on this so don't sue me if I'm wrong. I'm still not 100% sure what you can and can't respond to in this game as it's different from Magic in many cases.

- SF

jogo said:

I had thought that you Bolt once using the # of devs in play. So it'd be Bolt with 10 Devs in play = 1x action that causes 10 damage if you can pay the 10 Resources. That's why Long Winter is pretty harsh to BT decks, imho, or any Dev-killers. If this is played differently, it should have been clearly put into the recent FAQ. Shub or Clam, can you explain how Bolt works then, if we're doing it wrong??

jogo said:

LOL, sorry for the million responses in the thread in a row, just trying to answer all the questions:

Wytefang, unless I'm reading the card wrong, your opponent has to have as many Developments as you to even draw cards assuming you pay the full amount for X. For example:

I have 5 Developments in play, you have 3. I spend 5 to play Reap What's Sown. I draw 5 cards, you don't have the option to draw 3 because you don't have at least 5 Developments. For reference, here's the wording on the card:

"Each Player with X or more total developments may discard his hand and draw X cards."

So in this instance, you are playing the card wrong.

I think the "I play it this way so your wrong" argument gets taken out of context a lot but most of the time it's my way of saying that you're literally not playing the card correctly. It's how I talk or explain myself. I apologize if it comes off arrogant and know-it-all, but I don't mean to offend anyone. I put a disclaimer in my very first blog post that if I offend anyone with any of my posts/blogs, then I'm sorry. It's how I am.

- SF

Apparently there were a zillion responses there when I posted that.

Ok, so here's the deal with Long Winter vs. Thrower. It doesn't really do anything unless your opponent messes up.

Playing Thrower correctly, you should have a dev in battlefield already when you go into your "final turn". Then you play the Thrower. If they respond to the Thrower with a Long Winter, play your dev for the turn to battlefield. At this point they can actually be irritating by destroying the Thrower - you'd have to Disdain that or play another Thrower. Next, zap them for single points of damage indirectly, one at a time, letting each one resolve. If your opponent responds at any point with a Long Winter, zap them a whole bunch of times in response to kill them.

Now, if you don't get time to play a dev to battlefield, Long Winter can be pretty annoying since they can play it in response to the Thrower. So if you have seen Long Winter in that situation, you are best served by playing the Thrower first, then the development.

Yea, its x single damage points. That is why toughness is so strong against it. As a side note, a support card that gave your capital toughness 1 would be pretty amazing.

From what rule do you get that it is a final variable and not a pointer? I have searched by looking at (xD) and have not found one.

Another question:
If you play a unit/support as stack starting, is it in play or it is just on the stack? (I think it is in play, I want just to check).

It's in the ruling summary thread - go look.

If you play a unit/support as starting a stack, it's just on the stack until it resolves. The resolution of the effect is putting it into play. This is why Zealot Hunter kills Deathmaster and the DM can't kill the Hunter.

ShubFan27 said:

Shub, I figured you weren't meaning it snottily, which is why I was careful to point out that I didn't mean my remarks (either) snottily. Just wondering.

I'm not seeing anything on Reap that would preclude someone from drawing less cards, though? Since it's worded "each player," with no other limitations that I can see. Also, I'm fairly confident in my remembrance that when I asked James, he explained that the other player can draw as many as he wants for free since you paid the cost. I'm nearly certain that's what he said but I'd asked him a long time ago right after that card came out...maybe he's changed his mind?

Mainly my issue is that X is a variable that doesn't have to be the same variable for both players - nothing I've seen in the rules would imply that X has to be the same for two different players on the same card. So if John has 5 Devs and pay the 5 resources, I'm not seeing why Mike, who has 3 devs couldn't just draw 3 cards.

Hope that makes sense.

Clamatius said:

This doesn't make sense to me. The way the card is worded, you can certainly use it over and over again with only a single development (assuming you have enough resources available to even make it all that potent) but, I'm not seeing at all how a Long Winter wouldn't just blow up the Dev and stop everything.

The scenario:

Clamatius has Bolt-thrower in play and 1 dev that he already played for this turn. Clamatius decides to use BT to do 1 damage - I play Long Winter to blow up his Dev. If Clamatius cannot respond with Disdain to Long Winter, this turn's indirect BT damage attack is done. What am I missing here?

Also, of what benefit at all, in light of Toughness (if you're playing a Dwarf deck against the BT), would there be to firing off 1-point Indirect damage attacks over and over with the BT rather than firing off 10-points at once (if you have the Devs and Resources)??

X is in the cost of the spell, so X is fixed when you pay for it and play it. You don't get to magically decide that the X on Flames of Tzeentch is lower than what your opponent paid either.

EDIT: what you are missing is that you can respond to Long Winter with additional activations of the thrower. If your opponent plays Long Winter and you say "yep, that resolves" well then you're just bad.