Trample is good generally, but this deck has flying. Haste > Trample in this deck, but I don't think either card is worthy of main deck consideration.

Sorry but I've never wrapped my head around the inclusion of Valley Rannet especially over something like Borderland Ranger.
If you are finding that you need to cycle for Mountains or Forests your mana isn't set right. Borderland is a cheap fetch and body and that puts it over the top on value as opposed to the Rannet.

Agreed, Ranger fixes and provides a key chump-block while you set up.

May I also add that it helps fill a rather sparse 3 curve spot.

I run borderland ranger and he's great for that slot. Turn 3 is usually when I need a chump blocker out there if I haven't drawn fodder or Thallid or even if I have.

With the ramp, why need swamps or mountain cyclers? run more forest and you're sure to get what you need to ramp with. How many mountains do you need anyways? 7 seems perfect for this, while 10 forests and 3 swamps(and the telemorphic) also seem just right. You want to better insure you get a forest on that opening draw or before turn 3 at least, then the mountains flow from the ramp.

Now see Shadow I think the opposite as I run more Mountains than Forest. Once I fix in one of each I tend to go all Mountain unless there is a fixer that I'm compelled to use at some point and then I'll fetch out another Forest for the possible appearance of Spellbreaker.
I will only fetch another Swamp if it becomes apparent that at some soon point I will need to double up on Jund or Maelstrom in one turn.
Other than that it's ramp more Mountains baby!

My 3 cmc slot has more cards in it than any of slot, I definitely dont consider it sparse. If you dont run Dragonspeaker shaman, then I agree with your assessment of Borderland Ranger. However, I prefer to run as much ramp as possible, and enjoy dropping turn 4 dragons. Valley Rannet gives added consistancy to this end that the Ranger can not match. I still have the body turn 3, but it is a shaman. I still can fix, but a turn earlier so Im not competing with Cultivate, Dragonspeaker Shaman or possibly Jund Charm and Maelstrom pulse. And I have the option of turn 4 dragons. If you dont run Dragonspeaker shaman, then dont run Valley Rannet. If you do, give them a try, as they improve consistancy. Im not saying the shaman are the best way to play this deck, it is the way I have the most fun playing it. The same reason I run Heartless Summoning in LoD

I should have clarified, sparse in terms of creatures as I don't run the Shamans anymore. Getting another land is icing on the cake.
From a lot of experience with this deck I have seen Rannet slow people's decks down by taking up a six spot. If you're cycling it, you get the land without the body. If you need the body there are much better cards for slot 6.
As for consistency, the Rannet offers no more than the Ranger and if you feel it does for you I would suggest reassessing your land base.
This deck need early bodies for defense and if you are running the Shaman for it's ability then the last thing you want to do is use it to block because if you do you have lost that bonus. Ranger gives you the bonus and lets you chump block without worry.
Running cards that have the ability to cause you to second guess yourself is a big mistake I see a lot of players make. When I realized that the Shamans were making me do this I got rid of them.

My land base has been working fine, as I had a 96% chance of casting my two ramp spells (Dragonspeaker Shaman or Cultivate) on turn 3. If I ran the ranger, it slowed down my deck, as it didnt allow me to fix turn 2 to ensure the proper mana turn 3 for my ramp. And I agree with you, I often choose not to chump block with the shaman, because Ive had a 74% chance of ramping out a dragon with him before turn 6, so Id rather not chump unless necessary, so that I can have something bigger than a 2/2 next turn. As I said before, I like what the shaman offers, but if he isn't your cup of tea, I respect that.

I tried builds with and without shaman and found that if you run him, assembling the right mana for a turn 4 dragon is so hard that you pretty much have to run all the cyclers in addition to the terramorphics.

Even without the shaman , if you don't run the dragon fodder , having the cyclers has minimal drawbacks ( they are your only 2 drops ) and nice advantages . They are also fun against the reanimator deck.

Then we should test your theory in a shootout.
Dragons at High Noon!

Take 10 paces and DRAW!

Let me know and I'll take you on whenever.

Am I mistaken or the name of this deck is a play on the title of the Bruce Lee's film Enter the Dragon?

I thought it was a play on some low-budget porn flick.

Harry Potter slashfic.

The reason I run the cyclers (all of em) is because you don't know till you're looking at the hand whether you'd prefer it to be a body or a land. There are definitely cards that are better value for 6, or on occasion I'll wish I was hitting a land to make a certain drop on curve (although in this deck I should specify "the right color land"), but being able to do any one of three things really fits well in the deck from my experience (particularly if you're cycling for the G or B since they're often worthless to draw).

Judging from most folk's list, I guess I'm playing them in place of where most folks are putting lands (I go back and forth between 19 and 20 lands think right now I'm at 8forest/6mountain/2swamp with the 4 terramorphic expanse). When I drop to 19 it's generally a forest that's cut (to put it at 13 potential green sources), but really anything w/o forest access is probably a mulligan.

It may be overkill on fixing, but with wanting to hit R/B/G turn 3 and RRR/B/G/X at 6 to play on curve, I think some overkill is justified.

When possible I like to get my land out in this order: forest, mountain, swamp, forest, mountain, mountain, swamp, mountain, mountain, mountain, mountain...

This is because I run spellbreaker behemoth. However, I'll fetch three mountains before a second forest if I have, say, a Broodmother in hand and no spellbreaker.

EDIT: I also agree that the rangers make up an important part of this deck.

The fact that I've brought this deck back into 1v1 the other day and the discussion about the card of the day, I figure I'll run a few games in the current meta, see how it does and report back.
It's good to see what this might do right now.
I'll post results and the decklist I'm running in a little while.

On to the battlefield!

It's a much better 2HG deck IMO..

It might be better in 2HG, but I still don't think it's particularly good in 2HG. Anything ETD can do is done better by someone else.

Except Soul's Fire. It's better than Prey Upon and nothing else can really compare to what it does. It's possible to say that, in certain scenarios, it's equivalent to giving a creature double strike so you could say that Double Cleave is just as good, but that doesn't cover every way that Soul's Fire can be used.


I'm not saying that Soul's Fire makes the deck worth it, in fact most people don't run that card. But there are somethings that this deck does better than other decks.