Maybe you are right, Im not sure.

The Beastmaster can have Grizzly and a Gorilla or a Grizzly and two Wolfs guarding him by turn 3 (or turn 4 if I use the above standard opening). It is a pretty powerful defense. Of course it is vulnerable to AoE, but unless really heavie AoE is used it will still hold up and can be repaired. Without doing an indept analysis my intuition say it will take more resources breaking through than establishing it. And these can be turned to offensive measures if the opponent plays death- or manadrain conjurations.

I think what Im getting at is the difference between permanents and instantanious effects. Over time, permanents will be more effective, therefore it will be more effective to throw down permanents than instantanious effects as long as you don't get killed. And creatures are more flexible permanents than conjurations that are only do one specific thing. But this subject deserves its own thread.

Thanks Sdougla, that is great stuff!

Good thinking on the Mage staff!

I agree with you with the moonglow amulet, I think I chose Mana flower to save a point.

I also agree with you on the Main wings card. It is meant as an insurance for when you have to deal with a pesky angel or Lord of fire and you have spend your Sleep spell.

I am probably not gonna use all the big creatures, but I thought they have different kind of utility for different situation which is good when you have a more reactive style. But perhaps I overdid it and I can see the point of utilizing the quick summon ability more.

I think you are right in the rest of the changes if the strategy is to kill your opponent in mid-game, but I am thinking more of outlasting him, but still with the necessary aggression to take out dangerous conjuration-combos and jump on him if he is too passive.

I open with to foxes not because they are a big threat, but because my opponent will probably have to spend more resources in early game(actions, mana and/or cards) to deal with them, which give me more time to set up my main attack and tailor it to the opponents strategy. If he or she plays manadenial or Idol of Pestilence, the foxes and the BM can destroy those before they pay off. It will delay me, but it will also delay my opponent and perhaps ruin his strategy. I tried playing an air wizard against this deck and while I had the BM dance to my tune through early and midgame in the end my Wizard had spend half his spellbook and the BM still had a lot of creatures to cast. It might be because I haven't learned to play that build probably, but it got me thinking that the force of this BM build is not so much finishing your opponent, but simply being more effective with your spellbook. If you can keep your opponent from killing you and if you are more efficient with your spells, eventually you will simply outlast your opponent. Every time your opponent use a spell, his future options are reduced. This is why there is more focus on buffing and safeguarding than on curses and aggression. Of course, this will mean long drawn-out games that are less fun.

Perhaps someone with more experience can answer this: In many strategy-games, defense is more effective/efficient than attack. And in many games, a boring long-term strategy that focus on resource efficiency will beat more aggressive playstyles most of the times if you play well. Could something similar be true in MW? (and I am not talking about how to have most fun out the game   )

Anyways, this is speculation and I don't know if it holds true.

I should mention that it is an attempt to do something else than the obvious Lair-tactic, while retaining a simply build. It is of course great, but it gets old fast I think. And I have always liked to play a bit more reactive. But perhaps this is too simplistic?