Tempo Eladwen

[Airact]

The only item being worth killing is probably JD.


Spelleaters? Meh, I don't see good Lance players using that.
Soul Seeker? Well, maybe although I can work around it fairly easily if I just play right.

Then when it comes to teching against that single item... I don't see me main deck teching against a single thing that's not even that common (like, in under 50% of the games).


What the deck tries to do is... Tempo, I think that's all there really is to it.


First priority is to get dudes on-board. The 2nd priority is to keep the dudes on the board. The 3rd priority is to make the opponent waste as much as possible on getting those dudes out of the board.

The deck operates on chip damage. I disable his dudes, bounce them back, use LS to kill one and damage the hero, have my 1-2 dudes hit 2 damage a turn for 6 turns in a row. Eventually he's low enough for me to just turn my dudes sideways into him and follow up with burn.


Why I don't run high cost cards/fatties? I don't like playing late-game Shadow Era. The end. Games with this deck will turn-wise go late but I intend on that "late" to be a part of him trying to stabilize.

Why I don't run 1ccs? They are terrible. 1cc for a 1/1 Haste ally is... let's just say bad. Decent t1 going first (gets 3 damage in), poor t1 going 2nd (gets 2 damage in) and well... If I topdeck it later, I probably just curse myself from ever even considering running it. Twilight Tribe Herald is decent t1 in any case (he rocks with Puwen) but later... No. FTA is something I don't want to rely on.

This deck is an attempt to make a deck as aggressive as possible without me getting fucked over if I'm on the draw (or happen to not draw a t1 + t2). Did it work? Dunno.


This game not having mulligan also kicks aggro decks in the nuts pretty damn hard. That's not the biggest problem though and I don't want to continue my rant here.



Seductress vs Priest of Light? PoL gets killed by Karash + DMT or Karash + Bloodthirst. Seductress doesn't and let's me get some free damage in.



Criticism taken, though but I don't know what I should do to change the deck and keep it enjoyable. I could probably make it standard, make it win more games by making it standard. Where's the fun in that?

[JeetKuneDo]

So I'm confused...are you recommending that he includes LLN, SS, Aeon, or Squire? If so...what is he taking out?

I'm saying that by running no item destruction a lot of decks are going to get a free win on you. Also, by not running Aeon or SS, Gwen and DC are going to get a free win on you.

As for what he can take out, consuming fear and 4 retreat with all that burn is redundant.

I guess what I'm saying is, I can identify a lot of decks that have a significant advantage against it, but can't really find a lot of advantageous situations.

A more aggressive eladwen will have an advantage, portal maj beats it hands down. Gravebone would be ok, but there aren't many allies there and it will probably run out of steam.

Gwen and DC will murder it, as I said. Banebow will clear your allies and you wont have a way to deal with WOTF. You admitted that warriors give it problems. Zal would be a bad matchup as well. If a rogue can keep a AB on the board I don't see how you can win.

I can see it having a slight advantage against Elementalis (he doesn't have a lot of favorable matchups though) and doing pretty well against ally moonstalker, which mages get for free.

[Oblio91]

I don't think it is tremendously strong but it is no where near as weak as you are making it out to be...but we can agree to disagree about the viability of Tempo style Elads in the still-in-flux test server meta.

Snow Sapphire however...is really bad...and will not help much in the situations you described assuming they run the extremely common LLN. Aeon, Squire, and LLN wouldn't alter those anti-mage MU's much either but have enough general utility to make them relevant.

[JeetKuneDo]

Snow Sapphire however...is really bad...and will not help much in the situations you described assuming they run the extremely common LLN. Aeon, Squire, and LLN wouldn't alter those anti-mage MU's much either but have enough general utility to make them relevant.

First of all, no it isn't. People have used it in competitive settings to great success. Also, I really don't like it when people address things I've already covered and I have to repeat myself.

I only referred to SS being there as SOMETHING to stop DC and Gwen from getting a free win on you, I don't like to run it in my mage decks either.

[Airact]

My vision on what aggro should be is that if the opponent has time to set up a draw engine or a way to get board position later (Anklebreaker), he also has time to get murdered. Want a t3 Blood Frenzy? I'll make you from 30 to 0 before you stabilize.

This game doesn't have that so I mostly try to modify it a bit and make it so I still play aggressive but I don't have to resort to late-game focus.


In any case, I disagree with some of the stuff here. I don't see Zal as that big of a threat. Sure he has his ability and stuff but I should be able to force him to use it in order to contest it, not to gain it. Consuming Fear is key here and yes, I only run 3 of them but well, changes can be made.

Lance? Well... That goes perfectly for the first point of this post. He plays Anklebreaker and at that point he should be right about dead. Throw the rest of my guys at him and kill him. If he plays Spelleater's, yeah I'll lose. It's a taken risk.

Portal Maj can be quite difficult but if the opponent decides to play a t4 Portal, I'm cool with it as I should have a bunch of dudes hitting her already. Proceed similarly than with Lance.

Gravebone? Meh, he needs Nova and that means 5 more damage to him.


Banebow and Gwen are probably the hardest ones as those two can heal pretty well. Priests depend on what they actually do but they can be tough as well. A regular DC shouldn't be that hard (probably more reliant on FTA than the matchup, it depends on how much I can mitigate early damage) but a solo one is definitely trouble.



Maybe I'm just not having fun playing the way the game wants me to.


In any case I should probably up Consuming Fear to 4. Maybe add 2x Poor Quality although I don't really see space for that. Maybe one for a Santa and one for something else. I could potentially change the ally base a bit as well to add survivability.

[JeetKuneDo]

Lance? Well... That goes perfectly for the first point of this post. He plays Anklebreaker and at that point he should be right about dead. Throw the rest of my guys at him and kill him. If he plays Spelleater's, yeah I'll lose. It's a taken risk.

Portal Maj can be quite difficult but if the opponent decides to play a t4 Portal, I'm cool with it as I should have a bunch of dudes hitting her already. Proceed similarly than with Lance.

You're operating under the assumption that you've completely owned the board early game and have dealt a lot of damage by T5. How can you make that assumption when you're not running a t1 ally? Maj plays 1 ally, a FB/LS, and her ability and all your 'dudes' are dead. What decks are you playing against that have done nothing to stop your 2/3cc allies?

[Airact]

You seem to be a bit upset at something.


Oh well.

That's one of the reasons I posted it here: To make it better in what it is and not to make it what it isn't.


Would 1cc allies make a difference? Possibly. Twilight Tribe Herald could definitely make some magic happen but consistency is a bit of a problem here as I can only run 4 of those. I could definitely try playing with 4 though.

But yes I do assume I smash the early-game as that's what I want this deck to do. That's what I want to focus on. Win the early-game and win the game from there.

[JeetKuneDo]

You seem to be a bit upset at something.

LOL....what are you basing that on? Because I'm replying to what you're saying and asking questions? With zero sarcasm and no inflammatory remarks whatsoever?

I don't know why you'd post a deck and then get defensive when someone has valid criticism.

I'm out dude you're on your own.

[Oblio91]

First of all, no it isn't. People have used it in competitive settings to great success. Also, I really don't like it when people address things I've already covered and I have to repeat myself.

You brought it up in the first place...but it is the second point (thanks for quoting it again) I was referring to. Teching to a specific bad MU only makes sense if it flips the percentages significantly. Packing a couple of SS's or SOMETHING aren't likely to help in enough circumstances vs. anti-mages to make it worthwhile, is terrible in the rest of the MU's, and has no synergy with the rest of the deck. Could you build a good control Elad w/ SS? Absolutely. He could also make a rush deck. He could also play Zaladar. Those possibilities are irrelevant to this context.

[Airact]

Hm... Your tone (as much as one can analyze from written text lol) seemed a bit aggressive. I might've been wrong, though.


As for why I'm defensive: I learn from arguing. I think that's all there is to it (apart from it maybe being a natural reaction).