Bauble delay draw is too slow imo. Cut the 8 baubles and petals for 4 Rite of flame and 4 manamorphose. Add land grant as well. That’s where I would start.
Land grant is a really good idea! The baubles seem kinda necessary for DRC, maybe trim some and go up in petals for artifact type? I think manamorphose might be too expensive but it does cycle
@@danielhall9050 yea I’m not 100% convinced DRC is actually a sacred cow here. Probably still the best threat after the haste guys but unsure. You could do something like 2 bauble, 2 petal, 2 tarfire or something like that if you are really worried about delerium but you do have a pretty good mix of the main for types to hit on. Seek the beast is another option for threats.
At 49:50, Lightning Bolt is not a concern, but didn't they just get the Fireblast you cast under their Voidwalker? Grief attack plus Fireblast would have been lethal.
so actually, for this reason would the correct line have been to swing, not cast the fireblast, go to one presumably, and then attack the following turn +fireblast? or should the fireblast be used to kill dauthi and get the opponent to five?
This has been basically my list for legacy nights for a while now, I have switched up a little to add brainstorm and ponder instead of the hyper burn elements. Thanks for showcasing something I didn’t know others were playing!
I think the mindbreak trap was a mistake for the opponent in round 3. Mindbreak trap is fine against any deck looking to cast many impactful spells in a turn, but prowess is not really one of those decks. The creatures are what matter, then casting spells, but those spells don't really matter much individually. Also hurting their mana by playing a blue card instead of literally any red card for chrome mox was a big deal in game 2.
Rule of Law effects, on the other hand, can be very good against Prowess. I suspect the opponent just had Mindbreak Trap lumped together in their head with those and boarded it in without thinking about it enough to realize it doesn't really work that well.
I think there is a little more nuance here, but you're probably right overall. I would add that specifically Berserk could be answered with it, and it was quite unlikely and unlucky that it became public information due to bauble.
in the very last round of the last game when you conceded, in theory, if i'm not missing something, u could've cast slickshot and just thrown it infront of murktide with mutagenics through force of negation. as long as they tap out wasteland twice to not cut the price of progress damage AND deploy another land AND fail to have further interaction, there was a chance xD
With 13 lands, the MH2 card would’ve been really good. The one mana call land or non land and reveal until you hit whatever you called. Someone will know the name.
Burn feels pretty good in the current legacy scene, especially if you don't have to fight against combo which seems like a bad MU. This deck gets a thumbs up from me
If you want to kill a creature with Berserk, you can casr it in second main. The end step trigger will still resolve because it attacked this turn. You don't have to take double damage from the creature you buff.
6:44 "There's no nuance to this sideboard" 47:15 - "Unsure, need to see a little more of the deck to kind of sus out the nuances." [about sideboarding] 🤔😄
In round 3, game 1, if I'm not mistaken, you can cast berserk at sorcery speed on the opponents tapped Broadside Bombardiers and make them sac it at the end of turn right? That way you don't end up taking extra damage.
@49:42 Couldn't the opponent just Fireblast you wtih Dauthi and kill with Grief? O.o I think casting Fireblast there before lethal is definitely a mistake.
"Good job playing to your outs" Doesn't play to his outs, I wanted to see what would happen in that final round, It takes you 15 seconds to just see what happens. Never know, opponent could just draw lands the rest of the game and we win. Otherwise phenomenal video!
Round 1 Match 2 the final turn burn sequencing is objectively not the optimal line. It should be Lightening Bolt to draw out the FoW and take the opponent down to 4, then follow up with Lightening Bolt and Gutshot to finish them off.
The word objectively is a insanely huge fault point in your statement, it's not even like intrinsically wrong to say your line would be better but Leovold very clearly makes it not clear the bar of objectively better
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
Reminds me of the "hot dogs" deck that used to be popular in pauper. Who ever names this needs to call it Hot wings
That name idea is awesome, bravo
Love when decks get to do their thing in the first game, doubly so when its quite as spectacular as that first game
wooded foothills + Prismatic vista = 7 fetches that get mountain or forest
Think the idea might be that every land has to be able to cast Fireblast so basic forest in a way is a no-go
As someone who play Death's Shadow + Berserk 10+ years ago, I love this deck!
I love how both you and BoshNRoll immediately forget the name of that card as soon as it leaves the screen. You know, the, uh... Slickdog Sureshuck.
😂😂😂
Put some respect on Smugshit Sherriff's name
Bauble delay draw is too slow imo. Cut the 8 baubles and petals for 4 Rite of flame and 4 manamorphose. Add land grant as well. That’s where I would start.
Land Grant should be great
Land Grant does seem like it's worth trying out.
Land grant would be pretty spicy here.
Land grant is a really good idea! The baubles seem kinda necessary for DRC, maybe trim some and go up in petals for artifact type? I think manamorphose might be too expensive but it does cycle
@@danielhall9050 yea I’m not 100% convinced DRC is actually a sacred cow here. Probably still the best threat after the haste guys but unsure. You could do something like 2 bauble, 2 petal, 2 tarfire or something like that if you are really worried about delerium but you do have a pretty good mix of the main for types to hit on. Seek the beast is another option for threats.
At 49:50, Lightning Bolt is not a concern, but didn't they just get the Fireblast you cast under their Voidwalker? Grief attack plus Fireblast would have been lethal.
hmmm, yeah guess they both missed that.
i also thought this. curious if there is a reason they couldn't?
Came to say the same thing.
yeep, was also thinking of that
so actually, for this reason would the correct line have been to swing, not cast the fireblast, go to one presumably, and then attack the following turn +fireblast? or should the fireblast be used to kill dauthi and get the opponent to five?
49:55 you were dead on board and opponent didn't see the out. Grief hits for 3 and then Dauthi casts a free Fireblast for exact lethal!
This has been basically my list for legacy nights for a while now,
I have switched up a little to add brainstorm and ponder instead of the hyper burn elements.
Thanks for showcasing something I didn’t know others were playing!
I think the mindbreak trap was a mistake for the opponent in round 3. Mindbreak trap is fine against any deck looking to cast many impactful spells in a turn, but prowess is not really one of those decks. The creatures are what matter, then casting spells, but those spells don't really matter much individually. Also hurting their mana by playing a blue card instead of literally any red card for chrome mox was a big deal in game 2.
Rule of Law effects, on the other hand, can be very good against Prowess. I suspect the opponent just had Mindbreak Trap lumped together in their head with those and boarded it in without thinking about it enough to realize it doesn't really work that well.
I think there is a little more nuance here, but you're probably right overall. I would add that specifically Berserk could be answered with it, and it was quite unlikely and unlucky that it became public information due to bauble.
God I love watching decks that test when its time to go full leadfoot
53:50 you did have outs involving light up the stage. It was very very unlikely though so I don't blame you for scooping.
I played with an Izzet version that felt pretty tasty.
49:42 couldn't opponent attack with Grief, and use Fireblast off Dauthi to win?
I think so too, it seems they missed the line
He brings out a pimp named slickshot
I'm so happy you got to do the thing in the very first game 😂 I love berserk so much
19:00 bully Phil is best Phil
Could play 4 prismatic vista 4 wooded foothills 1 taiga 1 forest
in the very last round of the last game when you conceded, in theory, if i'm not missing something, u could've cast slickshot and just thrown it infront of murktide with mutagenics through force of negation.
as long as they tap out wasteland twice to not cut the price of progress damage AND deploy another land AND fail to have further interaction, there was a chance xD
Was there any thought to playing Lava Dart or is that more of a Modern card?
19:00 Maniacal laugh is for the ages
18:53 evil Phil laugh
I cannot belive it took so long for you to play Slikshot
out all the bubbles for rite of flames
With 13 lands, the MH2 card would’ve been really good. The one mana call land or non land and reveal until you hit whatever you called. Someone will know the name.
Abundant Harvest but I dont see how its good here
i want to play W/R ocelot soul sisters when mh3 drops. got a list ready for mtgo testing.
Hell yeah, now this is some cowboy magic
This deck is my shot of whiskey 🤠🤠🤠
15:50 am I missing something about bolt+gut shot here? They're on 5 life
They would have to force one of the bolts, which costs 1 life.
Burn feels pretty good in the current legacy scene, especially if you don't have to fight against combo which seems like a bad MU. This deck gets a thumbs up from me
If you want to kill a creature with Berserk, you can casr it in second main. The end step trigger will still resolve because it attacked this turn. You don't have to take double damage from the creature you buff.
First line of text of berserk says cast only before the combat damage step
Please reread Berserk.
Nice
6:44 "There's no nuance to this sideboard"
47:15 - "Unsure, need to see a little more of the deck to kind of sus out the nuances." [about sideboarding]
🤔😄
In round 3, game 1, if I'm not mistaken, you can cast berserk at sorcery speed on the opponents tapped Broadside Bombardiers and make them sac it at the end of turn right? That way you don't end up taking extra damage.
Has to attack and has to be cast before damage
Berserk has a really weird timing restriction where you can only cast it during the combat damage setp.
@49:42 Couldn't the opponent just Fireblast you wtih Dauthi and kill with Grief? O.o I think casting Fireblast there before lethal is definitely a mistake.
Are plotted cards face up exiled?
Woah your name changed to DB thrabenU?!
What happened to Madea Magica?!
I have two accounts. One is for the creator program.
"Good job playing to your outs"
Doesn't play to his outs, I wanted to see what would happen in that final round, It takes you 15 seconds to just see what happens. Never know, opponent could just draw lands the rest of the game and we win. Otherwise phenomenal video!
In round 3, you could have Berserked the Broadside on your turn to kill it during your turn.
Berserk only kills if the creature attacks
Correct but it's still considered attacking in damage after taking two, so it was possible to save two life by casting it in damage.
berserk only kills a creature if it attacked that turn
Please reread Berserk.
Please reread Berserk.
Video being an hour long for such an aggressive deck is mildly concerning, hopefully doesn’t mean it just lost a bunch of games.
Round 1 Match 2 the final turn burn sequencing is objectively not the optimal line. It should be Lightening Bolt to draw out the FoW and take the opponent down to 4, then follow up with Lightening Bolt and Gutshot to finish them off.
This is debatable since the opponent draws a card for each spell that targets due to Leovold. That is what Phil was mulling over.
@@cdadamly Two cards in hand are more powerful and can be played around rather than 2 cards from the top of the deck.
So, you agree your initial statement is wrong?
@@Konradexius No
The word objectively is a insanely huge fault point in your statement, it's not even like intrinsically wrong to say your line would be better but Leovold very clearly makes it not clear the bar of objectively better