Your Deck For Tribal Apocalypse 10.17

KEITH JUST WANT 2 WIN. MY POST 13-1 (deck id: 87891)
Tribe: Dinosaur
60 Maindeck cards and 0 Sideboard
Legacy Tribal Wars: Underdog · Dinosaur Midrange
 1st by Bandit Keith in Tribal Apocalypse 10.17 (3-0)
MAINDECK (60 Cards)
22 Creatures
4 Marauding Raptor

4 Raptor Hatchling

4 Ripjaw Raptor

3 Regisaur Alpha

3 Rotting Regisaur

2 Ghalta, Primal Hunger

2 Ranging Raptors

14 Spells
4 Commune with Dinosaurs

4 Reckless Rage

4 Savage Stomp

2 Assassin's Trophy

24 Lands
4 Taiga

4 Verdant Catacombs

4 Wooded Foothills

3 Forest

2 Nurturing Peatland

2 Rootbound Crag

1 Badlands

1 Kessig Wolf Run

1 Mountain

1 Stomping Ground

1 Woodland Cemetery

SIDEBOARD (0 Cards)


MATCHUPS
R1:  Win 2 - 0vs.  Nagarjuna  Sneaky Insects 
R2:  Win 2 - 0vs.  Generalissimo  Itty-Bitty Elder Gods 
R3:  Win 2 - 1vs.  _Kumagoro_  World of Goo 
 
MANA SYMBOLS
  21
  15
  5
Total:  41
CASTING COSTS
  x 8
  x 10
  x 9
  x 4
  x 3
  x 2
Avg CMC: 3.06
COMMENTS
1 Kaheera, the Orphanguard as my Companion

You guys remember when I complained about Post, even BEFORE the ban on Candelabra, exile Ugin, and that other untapping land? You know, when Post was even more powerful than it is now? I was accused of doing this in response to losing, and trying to create an environment where the aggro deck wins more? Well, my weaker iteration of Post is 13-1 now in matches. Hilariously, the only loss was to the mirror (timed out by a literal few seconds. Thank you MODO lag!).

Kind of what I did with Wolves. Nobody believed me when I said Nightpack Ambusher was very strong (I cannot remember if I said too strong). Well, lo and behold, after terrorizing Underdog with it, it has now been moved to the Major Leagues.

Oh right, and I'm the ONLY one who complained about Post obviously. Just like last week has shown us, with multiple people complaining about Post. In fact, I'm the only one who complains about problematic cards in general, like Bridge. You know, the 3 mana 'I win' card, that people shamelessly enjoy playing in a creature format. Since that card was banned, and Shrieking Affliction placed on the watch list, EVEN WITHOUT my votes, I wonder where the other votes came from. It's almost like, we ALL have an opinion on which cards are too strong, and winning / losing has nothing to do with being objective. Why do some people insist on consistently bringing unfun and/or unfair decks to a creature format and try to defend the worst among them? Storm? LD? Ad Nauseam? Bridge? What? I guess if you cannot posit a cogent defense why Bridge should be in a creature format, just go for ad hominem.

Oh yes, and I ALWAYS complain when I lose that the opponent's deck needs to be banned. Always. It has nothing to do with a fair evaluation of the cards. Ever. Remember when I lost to Nagarjuna's lifegain Rhox deck, and I said that Rhinoceros cards need to be banned? Or that time when I lost to arcbounddaylabor's prowl Rogue deck and I said that the prowl cards need to be banned because they are too strong? Obviously.

It's too difficult for some to discuss a card's power level in good faith, so let's attack the player himself! He only wants to win! Always ban opponent's deck! Ensnaring Bridge is like a one-for-one just like Swords to Plowshares! Harmless card in a creature format. God bless MTG players :)