Mono-black in Type 1

[Zherbus]

Since many peoples Suicide Black listings have mutated to a more expensive curve, the actual deck is looking closer to Knives everyday. Below is Legends deck built for a high control metagame.

Quote
Legend Black

4 Duress
4 Sinkhole
4 Hymn to Tourach
2 Null Rod

4 Flesh Reaver
4 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Hypnotic Specter

1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Demonic Tutor

1 Mox Jet
1 Black Lotus
4 Dark Ritual

1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
17 Swamp

The arguement:

This deck runs no zombies as they are just mundane critters with a drawback after they've hit a few times and offer nothing to the suicide player once the opponent has stabilized.

Legends arguement, taken from a conversation on BD;

"As for Flesh Reaver, I am not the first person to use Flesh Reaver, obviously. But what gets me annoyed is when I see Suicide decks with a creature base of 4 Sarco, 4 Carno, 4 Negator, and 4 Specter. This is unnacceptable. Carno and Sarco are useless, whereas against aggro deck, at least Flesh Reaver can kill a weenie for 4 life. He can at least act as a wall that makes you pay life sometimes.

What I am saying is, why would anyone play Zombies over Flesh Reaver, when Flesh Reaver equals two Zombies? To get 4 power from Zombies, you have to invest 2 cards. To get 4 power from a Flesh Reaver, you have to invest only 1 card. Playing Reavers over Zombies opens up valuable slots in the deck that otherwise would have been wasted.

The point I am making here is that Legend Black's creature base ought to be the standard, or near standard for Type I Suicide Black.

Someone might say, "well, I can't play Flesh Reaver in my environment." Well, if you have enough aggro in your enviro that Flesh Reaver is maybe not so good, then you might want to consider another deck since Suicide functions best in a control environment. Then again, I have tuned the sideboard so that this deck smashes aggro, so it can really succeed in any environment.

But I feel that any creature besides Negator, Specter, Reaver, and Shade (also Masticores in the SB, maybe even 1 or 2 maindeck if enough aggro in your area) are unnacceptable."

Quote
Spork, by Zherbus

Creatures (16)
4 Sarcomancy
4 Nantuko Shade
4 Hypnotic Specters
4 Phyrexian Negators

Disruption (15)
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Duress
4 Sinkhole
3 Null Rod

Broken Things (4)
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Demonic Consultation
1 Yawgmoths Will
1 Necropotence

Mana (25)
4 Dark Ritual
1 Mox Jet
1 Black Lotus
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
14 Swamp

While I agree with most everything Legends has stated there, I feel Sarcomancy is the better one-drop and should be in 'Suicide' to round out the mana curve. With the Sarcomancy you now have 14 turn one plays (not including strips/wastes). This cheaper mana curve also allows for more spells/creatures over lands. Necropotence is a game winner in itself and since this deck has nothing that can make it unusuable.

Also, I've seen too many Suicide black builds with 4 Null Rods. Personally, I'm thinking 3 might be too much. It's just usually something you don't want to see in multiples. (Those who use suicide on apprentice will agree that playing with 4 rods often end up with one sitting in thier hand when a threat would have been preferable.)

Quote
Classic Suicide Black (give or take)

Creatures (20)
4 Sarcomancy
4 Carnophage
4 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Hypnotic Specter

Broken (3)
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Demonic Consultation
1 Yawgmoth's Will

Disruption(12)
4 Sinkhole
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Duress

Mana (25)

4 Dark Ritual
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
16 Swamp

Suicide always comes out quick and full of punch. Yet if the game reaches beyond a handful of turns, then the suicide deck is basically stuck. My deck includes a necro in addition to the Will. This offers 2 come back cards.

Quote
Devil's Bile, by Zherbus

Creatures (12)
4 Nantuko Shades
4 Hypnotic Specters
4 Mishra's Factory

Disruption (15)
4 Sinkhole
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Duress
3 Nether Void

Removal (3)
3 Powder Kegs

Broken(4)
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Yawgmoths Will
1 Demonic Consultation
1 Necropotence

Mana (26)(30 w/Mishra's)
4 Dark Rituals
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Jet
14 Swamp

My reasoning is as follows, and incidentally is contradictive to why Null and Void is 'good'. When you've exhausted your card supply, you don't get a burst that will break the topdecking path to losing. Short of Yawgmoth's will (or Necro), you wont see recovery.

Nether Void (NOT 'Null and Void')doesn't have this problem. With Nether Void, it does one of the following:

1) Seals your lead, like an armageddon would. With a Negator or a Shade on the board, and nothing to threaten its existance, you will certainly win in a short few turns.

2) Helps recover from a bleak situation. You've seen it, the 1-2 turn Abyss that basically has you in a lock long enough to buy them time. Nether Void hits play after some discard, kills the abyss and once again your in the lead.

Additionally, against control your merely trading spell for spell, until you force a Void into play and suddenly a free counterspell isn't so free and 5 mana to cast a mana drain is hardly enomonical.

3) To the original point, you also get to run Necro, on top of Yawgmoth's Will. (I know some builds of suicide run necro already) This brings your count up to 5 spells you can play to seal your lead or to recover. 1 Necro, 1 Will, 3 Voids.

The problem that Null and Void has, and incidentally why it performs poorly, is that it runs Rishadan port for the reasoning that Nether Void should be a land denial deck. Its my firm belief, and please speak up if you think what I'm saying is absolute shit, that you play land kill/denial cards to disrupt.

In writings I've done before, I have always said building a deck with the intent of keeping your opponent at little to no mana is a bad plan. My reasoning is aggro. What do you do about a little Jackal Pup that slipped through the ass crack of a bad sligh deck? The answer is simple, you draw land kill spells and continue to pummel thier lands while his beasts kick your teeth in.

Nether Void shouldn't be so much of a land denial deck, as it is a DISRUPTION deck. The rishadan port slot is much better off being Mishra's Factory. Additionally, not including a Sol Ring in a deck that can potentially make everything cost 3 more is just plain retarded.

EDIT:Thanks Zharradan, I forgot some restricted stuff on that listing.\n\n

[hippie tourach]

Great article.  I agree that anyone whose metagame doesn't allow for Fleshreaver would probably be better off running Nether Void than Suicide.  But I do like Sarcomancy for its synergy with Negator as well as its low casting cost.  Running 19 Swamps in Suicide can be a big waste of space... unless you get Shade, of course

As you already know, I'm also in total agreement about how Void should be built and played (especially since the printing of Nantuko Shade).  My Void differs from yours by 1 slot, I believe (several more in the sideboard, of course).

[riverboa11]

Good read.  I agree with Legend on the use of Flesh Reaver over the pathetic zombies.  However, there is one thing that I noticed in all of your decks.  If your opponent sneaks out an early Abyss you are screwed.  That's why I run War Beasts in my build.  They act like a wall, just as the Legend noted out with the Reavers, but they definitely are better as the life loss isn't there.  But the avoidance of the Abyss makes me believe that they should be a staple in SuiBlack decks.

[Zherbus]

Quote (riverboa11 @ June 25 2002,13:08)However, there is one thing that I noticed in all of your decks.  If your opponent sneaks out an early Abyss you are screwed.  That's why I run War Beasts in my build.  They act like a wall, just as the Legend noted out with the Reavers, but they definitely are better as the life loss isn't there.  But the avoidance of the Abyss makes me believe that they should be a staple in SuiBlack decks.

Well suicide fears moat as well with only 4 flyers maindeck (or in the sideboard). The idea, as I am sure you know is to prevent the Abyss from entering play.

Disruption can handle this by either duressing it away, hymning it away, or killing enough lands in the time it attacks for 4 and 5 to keep it uncastable.

I agree, however, that once the Abyss hits play, it is pretty much over. If such an accident does happen then the game is probably over anyways. (Note: Nether Void doesn't have this problem due to Enchant World rules.) This shouldn't be the reason one should run Phyrexian Warbeast in mono-black. As a matter of fact Warbeast doesn't belong in either Suicide or Nether Void.

If you're running Warbeast your doing it for two reasons;

First, you fear Abyss and feel your creature base needs a champion to survive this. I've already address why this is a weak reason above.

Secondly, your running Warbeast because you need a good creature to play against other aggro. This is bad because with Suicide is just not the deck to play in an aggro environment.

Suicide inherantly loses to most other aggro. Sligh kill it, Zoo kills it (read this as R/G/u Zoo.), and even White weenie kills it. Weakening the deck against control just so it can have a better chance against aggro really dilutes the decks efficiency. This can backfire and instead of you losing to just aggro, you could just lose to control too since you just decreased you effectiveness.

If you're playing in an primarily aggressive environment, your better with stompy or white weenie im my opinion.

Nether Void on the other hand is a deck that can be played in any environment. This is not to say it doesn't have any bad matchups, it does. Stacker2 is always an uphill battle. Control, and weenie based aggro, however, are vulnerable to Voids strengths.

Against control, the disruption followed buy a Void, Yawgmoths Will, or a Necropotence is often too much. Against aggro, most of which run real low mana counts, usually get a few 1cc critters out before Void hits only to be kegged away or dealt with a Nantuko shade or a 3/3 Mishra later.

[FeverDog]

People calling the Zombies pathethic have not played enough Suicide. Contrary to what Legend believes, Reavers are not very good in a more creature oriented metagame because paying 4 life to kill a creature vs Sligh or Stompy is a death sentence. I agree with Zherb in that i believe 4 Zombies is enough to consistently have a first-turn play although i choose to run Carnophage because of how much aggro i see. Also, i understand why most ppl dont run Edicts but i have to say that since i started running a pair maindeck i have never looked back, sure they are dead vs combo but i dont feel thats a big deal.

Just for reference i will post what i am testing with right now.

//NAME: Suicide

        1 Demonic Tutor
        1 Yawgmoth's Will
        2 Diabolic Edict
        4 Sinkhole
        4 Hymn to Tourach
        4 Duress
        2 Null Rod

        4 Carnophage
        4 Nantuko Shade
        4 Phyrexian Negator
        4 Hypnotic Specter

        4 Dark Ritual
        1 Black Lotus
        1 Strip Mine
        3 Wasteland
        17 Swamp

SB:  3 Contagion
SB:  4 Dystopia
SB:  4 Spinning Darkness
SB:  4 Phyrexian War Beast

[Magimaster]

I agree with Zherbus' thoughts on warbeast. However, I think they make perfect SB card to replace Negator with should you face an aggro deck. Warbeast isn't needed main, it slows the deck down a bit, but sideboarding they are perfect. The only other decent alternative, Masticore, can get a little difficult to use sometimes, not only because it's hard to recover from his drawback but also because Sui doesn't really have the boatload of mana to make him uber effective.

oh, and Zherbus, I will end up making the Nether Void deck  but until I get Nether Voids (gimme till end of summer  )then those 3 spots will have to be Negator's for now.

I also do not agree with Legend's thoughts on Flesh Reaver being a wall. If you're going to pay 4 life to kill a creature, might as well run Snuff Out, atleast it's a little more versatile. For high powered Control metagames, Flesh Reavers work nicely, but I wouldn't run Reavers in a metagame where I would expect as little as 1/4 of the field to be aggro.

God I need to go play someplace proper...

Feverdog : If your metagame has that much aggro as to force you to run Carno's over Sarco, then maybe it's time to pick  new deck. Carno's are just suboptimal. They do trade off nicely with pups I'll give them that, but otherwise they are just bears with a drawback.

I agree with you on the Diabolic Edict issue tho'. Sui needs SOME form of creature removal, because even something like 2 creatures can give it fits. And Edicts help make certain matches like Oath and Stacker a little more hospitable.

Just one last thing I gotta say :

From the time I started playing T1 (about a year ago) to now, Sui is a whole lot more different now than what it was before. Back then, Sui was piss-ass weak against aggro, and against control it played much like Stompy, where it wanted to bust out as much creatures ASAP and deal those 20 points before your opponent went "Moat. YOU LOSE", while it tried to stall with Duress and Hymn. Now, it has shed the weak chaff, and with a couple of new additions, it now fairs stronger against aggro while still being brutally effective against control. Null Rods are like staple, hardly anyone palys Edicts anymore, and the sideboard is starting to be set in stone. Cards such as Necro have made their way back in (thank god).

I hope onslaught brings more goodies

[riverboa11]

While I don't play mono black as much as others (I'm generally a control player), I have playtested it quite a bit.  In my testing I have found the zombies just to be mediocre.  However,  I do play in a heavy control saturated field, where obviously the Reavers are the better fit over the Zombies.  But if you do play in a scrubby or a metagame that leans toward aggro then the zombies fit the bill nicely.

[hippie tourach]

Although Nantuko Shade makes up somewhat for the lack of creature removal in Suicide, it is still good to pack something else.  But running 2 Rod/2 Edict makes Consultation bad--so I don't think that's the right way to do it.

[Magimaster]

Quote (hippie tourach @ June 25 2002,21:29)Although Nantuko Shade makes up somewhat for the lack of creature removal in Suicide, it is still good to pack something else.  But running 2 Rod/2 Edict makes Consultation bad--so I don't think that's the right way to do it.

I'm not following you here....

I know that since only running 2 of each makes it not viable to consult for them, how does it make those cards not viable to use at all? Just because you can't consult for it doesn't mean it's not viable.

[FeverDog]

First, note that i still dont run Consult, so its not an issue for me.  

Also, although my area has its share of scrubby aggro/combo decks, the T8 is usually all good decks piloted by good players and i would like a chance to win. So far i have done well with Sui in my metagame and besides, there isnt much Sligh(although i am undefeated vs Sligh anyway) and i can beat most of the scrubby aggro decks anyway.

In my testing, i just like Carnophage better than Sacrcomany, i have argued the point in the past and i feel that its not worth getting into again. Play what works for you, period.

[Legend]

You are all missing the point. You are fixated on my "Flesh Reaver being a wall" comment, which was just a side point of what you COULD do in a worst case scenario.

In reality, my MAIN point still stands: 1 Flesh Reaver=2 Zombies.

If you fools still want to play Zombies, then fine. I'll get 4 power for 1 card, while you can waste your time investing 2.

Anyone who plays the Zombies is sadly misguided about Suicide Black.

EDIT:Flame type shit.\n\n

[Magimaster]

Quote (Legend @ June 26 2002,01:02)You are all missing the point. You are fixated on my "Flesh Reaver being a wall" comment, which was just a side point of what you COULD do in a worst case scenario.

In reality, my MAIN point still stands: 1 Flesh Reaver=2 Zombies.

If you fools still want to play Zombies, then fine. I'll get 4 power for 1 card, while you can waste your time investing 2.

Anyone who plays the Zombies is sadly misguided about Suicide Black.

EDIT:Flame type shit.

OH no, no

I'm not saying Flesh Reaver is bad. He's hella viable,

but not for everyone. Seriously, if you have 4 reavers in your deck, you might as well be playing with 4 less creatures against aggro.

I totally agree with you on the Flesh Reaver = 2 Zombie thing, but there are reason why Flesh Reaver is most of the time not worth running :

- Having zombies help round out the mana curve. Don't oyu hate those hands where you draw a rit, couple of swamps, and the rest are 2cc? Zombie's help prevent this. As well, it helps you have atleast a one drop most of the time.

- Allows you to run necro, which is an uber game-breaker.

- Maybe your metagame just doesn't call for it. I know some people's metagames ( *cough* Feverdog  *cough* ) don't even allow them to run sarco's (???) but it's true there are hardly any places like Neutral Ground where there are a lot of caliber decks, and alot of the field has access to power.

Flesh Reaver would be great in an area like where you play in. Even the control decks seem fast, and Flesh Reavers are brutal fast clocks, immune to Fire/Ice and whatnot. But sometimes, it'll just end up losing you games.

[Legend]

Look, what can I tell you, I KNOW that Carnophages and Sarcos are weak. I also KNOW that the concept of the "mana curve" is obsolete. There is no need for it. Do you see Sligh decks running a mana curve these days? No, because it is a silly, outmoded concept. I am very secure in my knowledge of this format, and I can tell you that Flesh Reaver belongs in control environments.

Even in aggro environments, Carnos and Sarcos still don't belong. In such a situation, the creatures should be Hippie, Shade, Masticore moved from SB to maindeck, War Beast, and Negator in the sideboard.

[Legend]

Go check out my creature chart, and the other stuff I posted in the Legend Black discussion in the other mill. Then you will all finally understand some of the things that I know are true: such as the fact that Carnos and Sarcos just don't belong.

[MarkPharaoh]

Sui Black with Zombies just get spanked by Sligh (trust me, I have been playtesting for 2 weeks and over 70 games)  The War Beast are amazing in the maindeck against aggro.  Most of the time the Sligh player or WW player or even a Stompy player has to do a 2-1 trade to get the beast off the board.  Tomorrow i'll add Masticore's to the mainboard and see how they help in the MB against aggro.

[FeverDog]

Well, me and Legend have agreed to disagree as it seems. I understand his points and i agree with what hes saying but in my testing i really liked having the Carnos in there to speed up the deck. Of course, the fact that Reavers are unplayable in my area makes the choice fairly easy for me. I wouldnt run Masticores main unless all i faced was aggro though, plus at 4cc i would need to up the mana count to 27-28 which is not a change i am willing to make. Actually, if you look at Legend's deck and my build there are very few differences between them, basically its this:

-2 Mana
-4 Reavers

+2 Edict
+4 Carnopahge

I know that only a few slots can make a big difference, im just saying they are fairly close. In order to undersand my deck you have understand the area in which i play. Its just really hard to explain my metagame well, we have about 10-12 good players playing solid decks and then we have a bunch of ppl playing weird combo decks and clumsy aggro decks. The problem is, when you dont even understand your opponents deck, let alone how he wins, then its much harder to beat them. Last tourney i lost to a really crappy reanimation deck because i had no idea what he was playing until half-way through the match and then i had no sb at all for game 3 where i just tried to outrace him and he won.\n\n

[MarkPharaoh]

I know what you mean, my enviroment is the same.  We have about 1-2 control decks and 1 combo deck (whenever I play Palichron) and the rest is aggro.

[Legend]

OK, you know where we both stand on the creature issue. But if you have already looked at my creature chart in the other mill, and if you have seen everything I have written here, at least consider what it would be like (don't even take the big step of doing it yet) to ax the Carnos and Sarcos. At least consider and test your deck with some more mana sources to support Masticores, since extra mana can't hurt anyway with Shade in the deck. Also, it doesn't appear that you need War Beasts, since your environment appears to have enough decks that Negator is good against. You seem to fall into the "mixed metagame" category of my chart, so you might pursue a creature base of 4 Hippe, 4 Negator, 4 Shade, and 2 Masticore. At least think about it. If you still want to stick with your current configuration, then so be it. I'm not even asking you to play Reavers (they are only for "control metagames"). Anyway, just think about it.

[FeverDog]

Negators are, strangely enough, excellent in my metagame because of how few red decks there are. I dont mind testing something else in place of the Carnos but honestly, Masticores are not warranted in my metgame, you will just have to take my word on that one. I am willing to consider any other creature for that slot though, including War Beasts, Pump Knights, Skirges or even Shadows(gasp).

I just though about something, what about Hasran Ogress, seriously? I mean, vs control you still get 3 power for 2 mana and you never have to worry about the life. Against aggro, she blocks/trades with opposing critters without any life loss and can still go on the offensive if you have the mana or the life to spare. Im sure i will get semi-flamed for this but i think she might be a decent compramise for me metagame. The only downside is that i absolutely hate the art on the card.

EDIT: Merged post\n\n

[Legend]

Er...stay away from Hasran Ogress, that's all I will say about that.

If Masticore is not in the mix for you, then take a look at the War Beasts, so you can go with a Shade/Hippie/Negator/Beast Configutation.

I am not suprised that Negator is good in your metagame. He is only truly awful against Sligh, he can be decent in certain other aggro situations, which is why it is such a great card given its status against control.

[FeverDog]

About the Ogress thing... it was late, i mean REAL late, and i was grasping at straws    

War Beast is obviously a solid choice, he is already in my sb, but when i side him in i usually side out Negators or Hippies so that i dont end up with twelve 3cc creatures. That configuration might work for some but i would rather find a 2cc alternative that wont slow the deck down so much. I will hopefully do some testing this week and i will see how it goes without any Zombies at all.\n\n

[kirdape3]

Magimaster: If you see a hand like that, gladly take the one mana burn and toss something out there.  You have 20 life points, and if they have to waste their time trying to beat up your large guys and you at the same time, they lose very quickly.

I wholeheartedly agree with Legend on this one.  There are really only two decks that I can see giving his deck any trouble game one: Stompy and Sligh.  He sides like a madman for both of them.  Notice that it took Mikey P a GOD hand in order to wreck him in the last big tournament.  Can it still lose?  Absolutely; this is Type One and stupid things happen.  However, if you want a deck that can win a lot and be reasonably cheap, listen to him on this one.  Metagame be damned; he's right.

[Zherbus]

Quote
by Nocturnal in another thread.
Regarding Nether Void,

That kind of deck is much more suited to a 1.5 environment because:
Wasteland loses 25-50% of its power
Negator and Reaver lose 25-50% of their power
Null Rod loses 99% of its power

Nether Void's heyday in T1 was when you could play 4 Black Vise and Dark Ritual could not be countered.

Ok, try this:

Take my Nether Void deck, add some common sense, find a control player and then see what happens?

Here go do that now, I'll wait. Do it on Apprentice if you have to.

*Waits*

You destroyed them 4 out of 5 games? Ok, now take the same Void deck, use some more common sense, and find a sligh/stompy/whatever player. Tell me what happens?

Here, I'll wait again.

Oh you won most of your games again. Well isnt that something? Me too!


Seriously, Nether Void in my current form is great. I dont care what people think after being exposed to Rishadan port Void, because that is a different deck all together.

Against control, you will kick ass. Not just Keeper either, Mono blue has a hard time with Void JUST as much as it has a hard time with Suicide. Keeper can of course just win, but usually only in the same fashion Mikey P. beat Legend.

Against aggro you play lazily. You play some mana, hymn/sinkhole/duress/strip a few times, the keg away any little shits that slipped through the asscrack of disruption. You then drop a void and laugh as sligh/stompy/whateveraggrodeckthatrunsshit forland tries to cast a 4 casting cost 2/1.

Your deck has 30 Mana sources. Usually aggro has far less. Wastelands arent so automatic when its needed to reach the critical amount of mana to start doing stuff. This makes Mishra's that much better.

Your creatures are usually better. They cannot block Specter, and Shade kills anything it blocks or is blocked by. Mishra's lend a helping hand to each other...and to themselves if they block.\n\n

[Criticism]

I think Legend's comment that the concept of a mana curve is outdated is very interesting.  This was in reference to the carophage/sarcomancy vs. flesh reaver discussion.

The point, imo, is valid.  In the control vs. suiblack matchup, you could, let's say, either have a carnophage turn 1, or a flesh reaver turn 2.  By turn 3, both the carnophage and thereaver have done the same damage to the control player. By turn 4, reaver is better.

Of course everyone realizes this analysis is not the same if you're against an aggro deck.  To me, though, the logic seems to still apply.  You could either pay 1 mana for a 2/2 that trades with a gazaban ogre (in Feverdog's metagame, I'm getting the impression that there is little sligh, but more stompy?), or you could play a 3 mana 3/4 creature, that eats up the 2/2's.  Given that stompy has no burn, I'd personally trade in the life for the card advantage.

In general, the mana curve seems to just mean that you have plays on all turns.  This may or not be important.  In the sui vs control example, it doesn't matter if you don't play something turn 1, if you reaver turn 2.  Also, in a Keeper vs aggro match, for example, it doesn't really matter what you do in the first X turns as long as you drop Moat (or other answer).

So to sum up, "creating a better mana curve" isn't a good enough reason to include something in a deck.  What is included must be both powerful and the best solution for the problem.

[dandan]

Just a minor point but it isn't possible to trade 2 for 1 to kill a Warbeast, the beastie goes to the graveyard with a land if I remember rightly. Worth remembering if there is a Void around.

Shame Pox isn't deemed worthy of a mention in a thread on mono Black. Pox is so much fun. can't say I play it if I plan on winning though

[FeverDog]

I could write a whole thesis with detailed examples showing why Sarcomancy is worth a spot in Suicide, but i dont have the time nor the patience to do so and considering most ppl seem to agree with Legend i dont see the point in it. All im saying is that with all your 2cc spells (most of which you want to cast BEFORE the Reaver) the Reaver will probably come out on turns 4-5 as opposed to turn 1 Sarcomancy. Also realize that it is much easier to slip Sarcos past counters.

My basic argument is that you will prefer to cast Hymn/Sink on turn 2 and Negator/Hyppie on turn 3 so by the time Reaver deals its first 4, Sarco will have dealt 8 dmg. Of course if both are left unchecked the Reaver will do more dmg, but that isnt likely as the control player will try to StP, Edict and Balance asap. Also, if your opponent drops Abyss on turn 4 and you only have a Negator in play, the damage stops there, but if you had cast that Sarco on turn 1, you have dealt more damage so far and you allow your Negator to swing for 5 more next turn after saccing the Zombie. And dont forget the truly great synergy between Sarcomancy and Negator, it is often important in the aggro matchup.\n\n

[dandan]

Feverdog:
All of what you say is true but I am unsure in what matchups your Zombies are better. Aggro is not a great matchup for traditional Suicide (4-8 Zombies), control would rather face Zombies than Reavers. Note that Reavers might come out on turns 1-2 following a Duress.
I think the only metagame where you would prefer Zombies is one where you expect to see your Negators bolted and in that case Suicide is not a great choice anyway.

I'm biased I don't have any Sacromancies!

[Legend]

Read the primer. I wrote a detailed numerical explanation of why the Zombies aren't up to par with the other creatures.

[FeverDog]

I read the primer Legend, and although it is an excellent one, it does have its flaws. Your comparison of Turn 1 Sarco vs Turn 2 Reaver is obviously slanted in the Reaver's favor, the problem is that you assume both creatures will a)resolve, b)swing for several turns unapposed.

Again, i respect your opinion and i would probably run nearly the same configuration if i played at NG, but not all metagames are like yours and that affects card choices. Im not saying ppl should run old-school 8 zombie Suicide, but i do believe Sarcos are worthwhile and my testing has proven that to me.

[Matt The Great]

The same reason Sligh decks don't use Kaervek's Torch or some such - you generally don't have the mana to make good use of it, there is more efficient cards available, and it's a bit random, really.