by Burton911 on 2009-05-10 16:29 EST

The Bant Grow Deck looks nice

---

by Duodax on 2009-05-10 17:40 EST

All In Red again lucked in tops. It shouls be dead since PtE..

---

by Spyx on 2009-05-10 18:34 EST

t1 moon = no pte with just a single plains in the deck

---

by Eldar on 2009-05-10 19:12 EST

AIR doesn't freaking lose to path it simply slows the deck down.

---

by ZW on 2009-05-10 19:21 EST

by Eldar on 2009-05-10 19:12 EDT

AIR doesn't freaking lose to path it simply slows the deck down.

It does lose to a path when the deck puts 4 cards into a creature and is left unplayables/lands in hand. "Slows the deck down" is very silly. It's like saying wrath is bad because it only slows down tokens.

---

by LordLink on 2009-05-10 21:14 EST

AIR doesn't lucksack into winning, it all depends on the meta. I lost to it because I was more vulnerable to moons than I thought.

---

by dv8r on 2009-05-10 22:47 EST

ZW: as someone who tested air heavily for this extended season, and came 9th with it in 2 ptqs (combined 11-3-1 record), I strongly disagree with you

you win more than 60% of your game to blood moon, you should never make a turn 1 threat if you can make turn 1 bloodmoon

---

by kurtyspice on 2009-05-10 22:56 EST

Good Jorb LLink

---

by ZW on 2009-05-10 23:21 EST

Path wins the 40% of the time you have no moon effects.

---

by ChristPunchr on 2009-05-11 02:27 EST

What the fuck are retards babbling about with extended dragon stompy not being luck-reliant? It's so fucking reliant on it.

If the original 1.5 deck is luck-reliant and it has [four] spirit guides, moxes, seething songs, rites AND tomb aggro lands (seven to eight), then I honestly don't see how the extended counterpart isn't...

the difference in the formats as far as metagames etc isn't even a fucking factor here because the actual numbers in 1.x DS speak for themselves as far as making the infamous first turn plays goes. As far as the creature issue goes, the deck is even more reliant when you consider that 1.5 DS can drop the vast majority of its creatures on the third turn without any ritual effects. When you compare this to the 1.x variant, almost every single fucking creature won't be entering play earlier than the fourth turn or so if a moon has been cast off of a rite or ritual.

Either way, if the far higher-powered 1.5 predecessor of the deck is luck reliant, than the 1.x port sure as fucking hell is.

Also, what the hell is this talk with people almost shrugging of PtE? If a second or whatever turn creature that got ritualed out gets Ex'd what do you do in the interim while you build up resources to recast another whether you have a moon out or not to disrupt your opponent? Sweet fuck all. Cast equipment. There are no 3spheres or chalices to augment the disruption plan whatsoever. All you have is blood moons to disrupt an opponent.

The deck entirely relies on a fast moon effect to win most games or a big unanswered fatty with the help of rituals with no disruption other than moon effects to protect them. Anyone that thinks that game plan isn't extremely luck-reliant should probably take up Yugi-o or Uno and leave magic the fuck alone.

Don't get me wrong DS decks are a deck one needs to be ready for or they will lose to them, but honestly...they're lucksack decks. I know because I have spent shitloads of hours playing the original.

---

by RiQuSP on 2009-05-11 03:05 EST

by ZW on 2009-05-11 01:21 CET

It does lose to a path when the deck puts 4 cards into a creature and is left unplayables/lands in hand. "Slows the deck down" is very silly. It's like saying wrath is bad because it only slows down tokens.

-

Who plays AIR and puts 4 cards into a turn 1 creature is bad.. (depends on mu tho) I always played AIR by trying to use as less rituals on a threat and it worked nicely.

---

by TugaChampion on 2009-05-11 06:28 EST

all in red is bad and anyone playing it basically wants to flip a coin.

---

by doublegg on 2009-05-11 07:34 EST

all in red is bad and anyone playing it basically wants to flip a coin.

-

Exactly. The deck is so unstable that it could hardly make top8 in a ptq and NEVER made top8 at a GP or PT if I remember correctly. It made top 16 in PT Berlin, mainly because the metagame was somewhat unknown cuz' of the rotation, and it packed Trinispheres and Chalices to be able to beat Elves! which, as everyone knows now, contributed to the greatest part of the meta.

A really good player won't choose this deck for a GP, PT or even a PTQ, simply because you can not win the whole event with this deck do to instability, and winning should be your main concern.

Here, in free tourneys, the decks is not bad to have a "good time" with or just to joke around.
Anywhere else (at a really competitive level) this kinda deck sucks.

---

by gluedman on 2009-05-11 10:43 EST

Rob was in the top 8 in LA with AIR if he wanted it and was undefeated on day one (long story, he fought against a matchloss for his oppenent in the deciding round.)

The deck does care about its opening hand, as do most combo decks.

I personally do not like AIR, but the deck is for real, and it deserves to be respected.

---

by Trotsky1 on 2009-05-11 13:10 EST

Simplicty is a strength alot of people underestimate, im magic atleast.

---

by Lunari_ on 2009-05-11 13:10 EST

It doesn't matter if a deck is skill intensive or not. When choosing a deck, the only thing that matters is expected W%. I don't care if All-In Red is autopilot or not, if it wins more than the other decks, I'll play it.

---

by Crossbow on 2009-05-11 13:45 EST

You people play a game where cards are shuffled. Unless you are a dirty cheat, which I am sure there are a few out there, considering all of the crying about the Workstation shuffler, you play a game that involves some degree of randomness, ie luck. Get over yourselves.

AIR is a combo deck, it is a good, viable deck especially in an enviroment that plays as many non-basic lands and quick continuous spells as this meta does.

Call it luck if you want, you are just showing your ass, which puts you in good company on the Internet.

By the way, it HAS won, and considering the overall deck numbers played, it has some good numbers.

---

by SniperMayer on 2009-05-11 14:53 EST

If you want to play a combo deck, then play a real one, Desire Storm. It's much more stable than AIR.

---

by dv8r on 2009-05-11 15:02 EST

air doesn't lose to a clique ir to seething song, and sure, you can have path in your deck, what if you fail to draw it? what happens if they cast etw and all you have is path to exile? what if you don't have a basic land for blood moon, heck, what happens if you DO have a basic land for blood moon but it's the wrong one. the only way you can successfully interact with the deck is by having path, what else are you going to do? chump deus for 10 turns?

in both ptqs I played in, I lost due to misplays with air, it's a very complicated deck to play against a non goldfish if you don't get an auto win hand, but I don't expect anyway who hasn't played the deck, or has only played it enough to lose with it (and thinks its a coinflip deck) to understand:

// Lands
17 [P2] Mountain (3)
3 [TSP] Molten Slagheap

// Creatures
4 [FUT] Magus of the Moon
4 [PLC] Simian Spirit Guide
3 [MR] Arc-Slogger
2 [CHK] Kumano, Master Yamabushi
4 [SHM] Deus of Calamity

// Spells
4 [9E] Seething Song
2 [8E] Blood Moon
3 [TSP] Empty the Warrens
4 [CHK] Desperate Ritual
4 [CS] Rite of Flame
2 [BOK] Umezawa's Jitte
4 [MR] Chrome Mox

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [8E] Blood Moon
SB: 3 [DS] Trinisphere
SB: 3 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 3 [PLC] Akroma, Angel of Fury
SB: 3 [ON] Dwarven Blastminer
SB: 2 [LRW] Thorn of Amethyst

---

by ZW on 2009-05-11 15:10 EST

There is a greater chance he draws path then you draw blood moon, and the chance that you draw blood moon/magus and go first isn't so great to say that path isn't effective.

---

by Qamiqaze on 2009-05-11 15:53 EST

when a third of your deck is mana acceleration (and your deck is monocolored), that's not luck... that's consistency.

---

by asamodious on 2009-05-11 17:56 EST

If u think path to exile is going to beat AiR just play chalice of the void. Set it at 1 and they cant play path.

---

by ChristPunchr on 2009-05-12 01:46 EST

Someone saying that a dragon stompy variant takes skill makes my mind recoil in complete terror at how fucking stupid some people are.
Is the archetype good? In some metagames, very.
Does the deck require more know-how and intelligence than other decks in the format? Fuck no! Oh no! You have to know how to mull in relation to your match, when to go for broke on an early creature and more basic interactions, like playing around/bating counters. Wow. Good job, you are ready for competitive mtg! Dragon Stompy decks are not brain surgery...they're like ripping off a scab. If you like the archetype, rad. If it is effective in the meta, better. To try to put forth the idea that the deck is difficult to pilot is fucking absurd though. The set of challenges that occur with it are almost the exact same set of challenges that present themselves when piloting any deck at a competitive level. Get over yourself and practice more if you are making play errors.

Edit: Keep in mind that a great deal of my experience comes from playing the 1.5 variant of the deck which is slightly more consistent, sees very similar blocks and gets to enjoy much more difficult situations that are generated by rock solid mana bases, a first turn moon not being an insta-win nearly as often and finally, 1.5 boasts a staggering variety of decks that can exploit bad draws and completely negate god hands with a daze or FoW.

---