PDA

View Full Version : [DTB] Team America (Aggro/Tempo Thread)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

nitewolf9
10-19-2008, 09:43 PM
After its debut top 4 performance at the Source Anniversary tournament I present to you Team America:

4 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf

4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Stifle
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Thoughtseize
4 Snuff Out
4 Sinkhole

4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
4 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
1 Bayou

Sideboard:
4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Krosan Grip
3 Diabolic Edict

The history behind the creation of this deck is quite interesting, as it sort of started out as a joke deck of Dave Gearhart's, referred to as "Europe". It was blue and black only, played confidants and stalkers as the only creatures, combined with the same LD package as Team America. Also, it played 4 maindeck extirpates and no removal. To say the least it was pretty bad (although pretty fun to play). The name was a reference to the vast differences between European and American legacy meta games, and was a homage to alot of cards that rarely see play in America.

As time went on, Dave and I started changing the deck around, at one point playing dreadnoughts in the main and also adding snuff outs. Eventually tarmogoyfs were added and the deck started looking strong. So, we started testing it and preparing the sideboard and maindeck for the Source tournament. Dave of course was locked in to playing It's The Fear, but me and Eric G. (Bourgeoise) decided to give Team America a shot. Eric had some rotten luck in the swiss (pun intended), but I went X - 0 and wound up finishing in the top 4.

The idea behind Team America was essentially to merge the successful elements of tempo based threshold and suicide black. A proactive disruption suite, and a total of 12 "free" spells (force of will, daze, snuff out), allows this deck to be a tempo-generating machine. The 8 threats it plays must all be answered quickly, as they end the game in short order, and the cantrip base of 4 ponder/4 brainstorm smooth out the deck's consistency; something where traditional suicide strategies tend to fall short.

While Team America does not run as many threats as a deck like Eva Green, and lacks the explosiveness of dark ritual, it gains powerful cards like force of will and daze, along with a cantrip engine. It is not quite as consistent as threshold lists running top but you unfortunately make that sacrifice to be more proactive.

I (as well as Dave) will probably be able to go more in depth with some of the card choices as questions are asked, but the list really is quite tight and well tested. The only real controversy right now is the argument of hymn to tourach over sinkhole. Both cards brutally attack an opponent's resources in different ways, but when it comes down to it it really is a metagame consideration. With more blue based aggro control, hymn is probably going to be stronger. If more multicolored control decks show up, as well as survival, sinkhole is going to probably be a better choice.

I will say this: I ran into threshold type decks a few times in the swiss and still was able to pull out victories, while drawing and playing sinkholes. It is too early to tell which is better, but that's where the development of the deck is currently.

At any rate, please discuss. I hope you guys like the deck as Dave and I (as well as the rest of the NoVA legacy players) put a lot of work into testing it.

P.S. Tombstalker is a very underplayed, amazing threat.

The Rack
10-19-2008, 09:51 PM
The deck seems almost too simple but I really like it. Congrats on your finish. Why Snuff Out over Smother or Ghastly Demise? Is the free affect worth it. That's my only question.

thefreakaccident
10-19-2008, 09:55 PM
Ironically, I thought of this one back when I was in oklahoma jake :cool: ...

Congrats on the fishish!


Why were you running edict in the board?

It seems terrible as a board card.

nitewolf9
10-19-2008, 09:57 PM
The deck seems almost too simple but I really like it. Congrats on your finish. Why Snuff Out over Smother or Ghastly Demise? Is the free affect worth it. That's my only question.

Elegance in simplicity; it is really focused on doing what it's supposed to do. Snuff Out is way better than Smother and Ghastly Demise simply because it is free. In a tempo-driven deck like this where you want mana open for stifle, or to tap out to play sinkhole or ponder on your turn, snuff out is insane. It's even more insane in this deck than it is in Eva Green. Ghastly Demise isn't so hot with tombstalker, or when facing down a dreadnought or huge terravore, and smother costs too much.

Snuff out also has the added bonus of evading counterbalance. On more than one occasion at the Source tourney I was able to play removal through a counterbalance "lock" and win with tombstalker.

nitewolf9
10-19-2008, 10:04 PM
Why were you running edict in the board?

It seems terrible as a board card.

Diabolic edict is unconditional removal and is fantastic against threshold-type strategies. It comes in when snuff out just won't do, or to augment the removal suite. Edict really was great all day.

frogboy
10-19-2008, 10:14 PM
If your opponent is actively playing around Stifle, how good is it?

Deep6er
10-19-2008, 10:24 PM
If your opponent is actively playing around Stifle, how good is it?

Then it served a purpose in slowing them down.

You need the speed to make sure that your plan executes well. If they voluntarily slow themselves down to try to "kill" a theoretical card that you may or may not have, then the card has done it's job without you even needing to play it (obvious simplification, but accomplishes the goal nonetheless).

I would prefer my opponents trying to play around Stifle rather than walking into it (in some scenarios) simply because I don't always have Stifle. It makes the card a lot better when your opponent fears it.

rsaunder
10-19-2008, 10:28 PM
If your opponent is actively playing around Stifle, how good is it?

In a tempo deck like this, that might even be better then stifling something. Especially since you can just leave U open and bluff the stifle getting the same effect.

Whit3 Ghost
10-19-2008, 10:31 PM
If your opponent is actively playing around Stifle, how good is it?
Then they're distorting their strategy to some extent, making your other cards that much better.
Tombstalker is a great card, but if you had to play another threat, what would it be?
After the source tournament, do you think you would do anything to the list, even just minor tweaks?
Is a report in the works?
Needs more Extirpate. Totally.Edit- wow, I got posted over by 2 people answering the same question. Great minds think alike.

Vacrix
10-19-2008, 10:37 PM
how does the goblin/elves/zoo matchups look for this? do you just distrupt them early with discard and free kill/countermagic and cantrip into more answers? seems like if your creatures got StP'd while you are trying to counter their shit you would be in some trouble.

also, how do you deal with blood moon? just counter it? dont you wish you had basics sometimes?

this deck looks sick though. you just play free shit, and cantrip into more free shit.

i think that bitterblossum could find a place in this. Its just as dangerous and harder to remove. It is just mediocre vs. counterbalance if you don't protect it when you play it or try to distrupt before it comes down. it would be nice just to run 2 just to increase your threat density.

also, could mystical tutor find a place in this? tutoring up creature kill in certain matchups seems like it could be very important. you may not always find it by cantriping.

i also think that hymn is looking stronger. but i dont play the deck, so yeah.

EDIT:

btw, remand is also massively underplayed.. its not too expensive either, and it cantrips.



EDIT #2:
Yeah i'd love to see a tournament report too and see how this thing plays.

Start using capitals or start receiving warnings.

-PR

frogboy
10-19-2008, 11:02 PM
It seems like it would be hard to consistently represent Stifle in the 20 land deck with nine fetchlands, particularly when you're playing Thoughtseize, Ponder, and Tarmogoyf. To do so would seem like it slows you down as well, and possibly have some cost associated with Brainstorm.

raharu
10-19-2008, 11:25 PM
I'm aware that it's symmetrical, but have you considered Smallpox in the Hymn/ Sinkhole slots? Maybe another threat, perhaps?

nitewolf9
10-19-2008, 11:40 PM
I'm aware that it's symmetrical, but have you considered Smallpox in the Hymn/ Sinkhole slots? Maybe another threat, perhaps?

We tried Quirion Dryad for a bit, but that wasn't too great. You can't afford to lose one of your threats to smallpox, and it hurts you more than it does most decks.

raharu
10-19-2008, 11:58 PM
We tried Quirion Dryad for a bit, but that wasn't too great. You can't afford to lose one of your threats to smallpox, and it hurts you more than it does most decks.
Actually, that leads into another suggestion I was going to let gestate, but I'll mention now: What about some sort of creature recursion, such as Volrath's Stronghold in place of the Bayou, adding in more late-game resilience and a bit of inevitability? That, and if I were to suggest another threat wouldn't be Dryad, but either Werebear (which is still larger than most of the format, in case you were wondering) or a utility critter/ something a bit more resilient/ something solid in the late-game (I hate tempo/ fast non-combo decks without a contingency plan). Maybe something like DC (which isn't fitting to the deck's gameplan, much like Bitterblossom, so no) or a singleton Gigapeede and some River Boas. Maybe -4 Sinkhole -1 Bayou, +1 Gigapeede, +1 Volrath's Stronghold, +3 River Boa? It's a bit non-sequitorish with the rest of the deck, though. I'd rather the Volrath's Stronghold and 4 Smallpox. iDunno.

jazzykat
10-20-2008, 12:37 AM
After playing dreadstall and having daze be relevant so often so late (stifle,wasteland) I can only imagine that sinkhole is a house in here.

The fact that Tombstalker dodges all commonly played removal but STP is rad and both it and Snuff Out dodge counterbalance.

With the addition of cantrips, this deck has successfully addressed my largest gripe with Eva Green.

Furthermore, while the explosiveness of ritual, and the power vs. control of hippie will be missed I always felt that shade was better than nothing but not very good.

Given the current interest in Adnauseum, the 4 stifles and free counters MD poise it strongly vs. most combo. I'd love to see the metagame breakdown of the Source Tourney but I am interested to see how much aggro was there and with this deck now on the scene how well it will stand up.

Overall sweet deck and looks like a hoot!

Valtrix
10-20-2008, 02:35 AM
Huh, something small I feel like pointing out is the use of nine fetches in order to fuel tombstalker :P

Otherwise, I don't know. Seems simple yet (fairly) effective. Moon effects hurt you a lot though. In fact, blood moon says lose game and magus of the moon says that you lose without a snuff out. In fact, looking at it, the whole mana-base seems really fragile. 16 color lands and then wasteland with three colors...Seems rough with how many decks run sinkhole/wasteland/stifle, all of which are really going to hurt you. Have you really not been having trouble with that?

DalkonCledwin
10-20-2008, 03:07 AM
I really like the list, and will have to keep an eye out for this thread, and the development of the deck. As I am currently working on building a Red Death budget deck, and am curious about any and all variants on the Suicide decks. I would have to obtain most of all of the cards in this deck list. However if this deck does in fact prove to be a decent contender in the coming year or two, it may be worth getting the cards needed to make this deck, so that I can start playing the list.

However for now I think I am going to stick with Red Death as a deck to work with. Thank you for sharing "Team America" and congrats on your finish.

Additionally I agree, this deck would lose so fast to Dragon Stompy the way it is currently posted.... needs some basic, even if it is a basic swamp (the most crucial for this deck is the swamp not the islands) but could include both a swamp, and an island. The list I would run is as follows:

4 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf

4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
3 Stifle
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Thoughtseize
4 Snuff Out
4 Sinkhole

3 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
2 Swamp
1 Island
1 Forest

Hanni
10-20-2008, 03:36 AM
I played and tested a 3c deck (UBg) similar this for a while, around the time when I was toying around with B/g/w Deadguy Rock, and I agree to the strength of this concept. My list then wasn't exactly the same as this right now, but I agree your deck is really strong.

What I like most is the synergy of your cards; LD and Daze are very synergistic together, for example. I would not drop the Sinkholes for Hymns out of the maindeck, though I do think additional discard in the sideboard could be a good idea.

However, I do question the strength of Snuff Out in here. While I agree that some of its usage is very strong, running only 16 black spells and already running CDA in Force of Will seems iffy. I have not tested it, and will not disagree with the choice; I'm merely questioning it.

Also consider Nimble Mongoose (between the decks 75), since you clearly have the ability to establish Threshold. Not sure if it's necessary, but 3 different threats (and one that is especially nice to the curve) is solid. 1cc 3/3 untargetable continues to be extremely strong in this format, Goyf or not.

Other than that, it looks really good. I'd personally like to see Pernicious Deed in the sideboard, especially since it's so strong with Tombstalker and answers random problematic decks for you, but that's probably metagame dependant.

Nice job with your Top 4 finish, btw. Congrats.

EDIT: On a sidenote:


Given the current interest in Adnauseum, the 4 stifles and free counters MD poise it strongly vs. most combo. I'd love to see the metagame breakdown of the Source Tourney but I am interested to see how much aggro was there and with this deck now on the scene how well it will stand up.

Actually, you are right about this and wrong about this at the same time. Stifle is good against Ad Nauseam, but not because Stifle hits storm. Rather, Stifle'ing fetchlands is really strong against B/u/w ANT. However, against a 5c version more in the approach of TES (no fetchlands), Stifle is actually a subpar card against Ad Nauseam. ANT has the resources to be able to either Duress or Chant you before it finally casts Tendrils, so using Stifle to hit the storm triggers is unlikely to happen.

frogboy
10-20-2008, 03:43 AM
However, I do question the strength of Snuff Out in here. While I agree that some of its usage is very strong, running only 16 black spells and already running CDA in Force of Will seems iffy. I have not tested it, and will not disagree with the choice; I'm merely questioning it.

You're aware you don't pitch a black card, right?

Hanni
10-20-2008, 03:46 AM
Wow, I was totally thinking of a different removal spell for some reason. That's what happens when your slightly drunk and post at 2:45 AM.

At any rate, I disregard my previous statement and completely agree 100% with Snuff Out as the removal of choice for this deck.

TheLion
10-20-2008, 06:27 AM
Seriously: I am tired of seeing decks like this. It's just a bunch of good cards thrown together as a 4-off each. I see neither any synergies nor any innovation. It looks like BG Suicide, only that is was designed as UB.

The development process likely was: "Hey, let's make some UB aggro deck. Just take the black part from an already good aggro deck (Suicide Black/Eva Green) and then just add in some good blue cards (Brainstorm, FoW, Daze, Stifle), that Threshhold runs already. It can't be bad."
And in the end you thought "well, let's splash green to add Tarmogoyf".
Then make every card a 4-off and tell us you invented a new deck.
Come on, where's the innovation here? Anyone and my grandmother can post a decklist like this. Not that is bad or something, but it is boring as hell.

And why is this deck in Established Decks forum? only because it made Top4 once?

1. Attack the idea, not the poster.
2. Don't back seat mod; use the report post function if see an issue with something.

-PR

darkalucard
10-20-2008, 06:32 AM
I agree with TheLion.

I play a deck like this but there is actual thought to it and the numbers of cards are not 4 of everything. I would post it but I don't think barely missing Top 8 twice by losing the last round qualifies.

Waikiki
10-20-2008, 06:50 AM
too bad ITF really have synergies if you look further.

Bourgeoise
10-20-2008, 07:21 AM
Eric had some rotten luck in the swiss (pun intended),

Har de har har har, nice joke.

@ Raharu

Take a step back and consider the decks manabase for a second, adding a Volrath's Stronghold as a random one of could seriously screw you out of a game. I would say that at the moment we are running about the minimum as far as colored sources of mana go, that is unless you want to risk not being able to play your spells in a timely fashion. Also, the Bayou serves a very important and easy to discern role in the deck. With a Bayou and an Underground Sea in play you can cast any spell in the deck (with 6 cards in the graveyard for tombstalker if you want to get picky), without the Bayou you would need 3 lands to play any spell in the deck since you need to be able to hit double black and be able to hit green to cast tarmogoyf.

As to suggestions about more threats: Gigapede - How do you expect to cast Gigapede at 5 mana with only 3 green duals in the deck when you want to start by cutting one of said duals? River Boa - This creature seems situational to the extreme, do you want to keep one of your remaining two green dual lands untapped so you can regenerate? Does this provide you with a sufficient clock against combo, after cutting one of your best disruption spells? Does goblins even care? Find me a mana efficient creature that is able to advance this decks gameplan while making up for the loss of the sinkhole/hymn slot and I'll do some testing with it and let you know how it goes.

Also, in case those paragraphs were TLDR, don't cut the Bayou.

@ Vacrix

My opinion on remand is as follows, it might qualify as a personal opinion but maybe you will come to a similar conclusion about why Remand might be an underplayed card: Remand never completely answers a threat, it cantrips you sure, but the point of spending mana to counter a spell is to never see it again. If you spend the mana and take the time and effort to counter a spell it normally means that the spell would be bad for you if it resolved. There is never any circumstance in which remand is a hard counter unlike force or daze. It does not provide you with card advantage and you still need a way to deal with the spell that you remanded. If you want to try it out I encourage you to do so and power to you if it works. I would rather play street wraith (since it takes no mana investment to cantrip you) to draw me into a relevant answer to a game changing spell and Street Wraith will never ever be in this deck. Ever.

@ Cathal83

With this deck your dream first turn play against an unknown opponent is thoughtseize with daze in hand, to pull this off you need an Underground Sea in play. While I agree that chalice/trinisphere/blood moon/back to basics decks can be bad for you, I think that adding basics is the wrong approach. With this deck you want to be the aggressor and running basics just to increase your potential percent against a certain archetype will probably also hurt your chances against that same archetype by randomly cutting you off of the color of mana you need early game to make sure your opponent doesn't get their game plan started. Also, basic forest? Am I supposed to just randomly draw into this and kill the dragon stompy player that I failed to stop with my game plan and allowed to land a blood moon with all of my tarmogoyfs? There isn't even a way to fetch it in your list.

In regards to cutting the Bayou read the first paragraph.

@ Hanni

There is an extreme amount of dissynergy (it's probably not a word but you should know what I mean) between Nimble Mongoose and Tombstalker
so I'll just ask: what would you have me cut for Nimble Mongoose and is Nimble Mongoose actually better than the card you want to cut? Note: Tombstalker and Tarmogoyf are much better threats, you should probably keep around the 20 blue cards to properly support Force of Will, leaving the other two black slots which are a very important disruption spell and the deck's only maindeck removal. Also, there seems to be dissynergy between tarmogoyf and tombstalker but in testing and in match play so far this has never been an issue and I'm sure that this has been covered somewhere in the Eva Green thread.


@ TheLion

Please refrain from just attacking an idea/deck after a simple glance and very little reading this is a forum for discussion about magic decks and magic theory. What does synergy mean to you? Does it mean LD with daze? How about thoughtseize which helps you to set up your play decisions for a few turns and helps decide between dropping your threat or further disrupting your opponent? This deck combines some of the best disruption with some of the best countermagic and two of the best finishers in legacy.
Also, do you mean to tell me you want to see a deck that runs shitty cards instead of the best cards for the job this deck is trying to accomplish: stop your opponent from playing magic while you beat him silly with a fuglystick.

What card would you like to run as less than a 4 of? Every card in this deck you want to see as early as possible depending on the matchup. If you feel this way about this deck you have never played then feel free to not look or comment - it is your choice - but keep in mind that your fellow sourcers see your posts and if you ever create a deck that does extremely well at a legacy event of this size, and you know, plays good cards, people might be reluctant to leave you feedback or even care, so please be respectful.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That being said this deck was a blast to play and worked pretty well against the field. Some matchups I would like to see discussion on improving would be Ichorid and fast aggro decks, destroying all of Peter Rotten's lands then dying to 3 one drop creatures was no fun :(. It's not that I feel this deck needs more threats I would just like to see my threats more often and some of my finish could be chalked up to pure bad luck (like seeing one Tombstalker out of my 8 creatures through 31 cards of my library in round 2). I strongly suggest doing at least a little testing with the deck against various archetypes before posting ways to fix the deck (if it is in fact broken in any way) as it is not quite like anything I've played before.

Skeggi
10-20-2008, 07:36 AM
Please refrain from just attacking an idea/deck after a simple glance and very little reading this is a forum for discussion about magic decks and magic theory.

What I mainly see in TheLion's post is his observation of the fact that all the cards in this deck have a high power level on their own and don't necessarily complement eachother. There are strong control cards, combined with strong finishers. Each card is on its own a good card. The way this deck may be seen as new and innovative is that it's exactly about that. No CounterTop, StifleNaught, PainterStone where you need two cards to go completely broken. This struck me as 'too easy' at first too, but I must say, the simplicity of it has great potential.

Vacrix
10-20-2008, 07:44 AM
@ Vacrix

My opinion on remand is as follows, it might qualify as a personal opinion but maybe you will come to a similar conclusion about why Remand might be an underplayed card: Remand never completely answers a threat, it cantrips you sure, but the point of spending mana to counter a spell is to never see it again. If you spend the mana and take the time and effort to counter a spell it normally means that the spell would be bad for you if it resolved. There is never any circumstance in which remand is a hard counter unlike force or daze. It does not provide you with card advantage and you still need a way to deal with the spell that you remanded. If you want to try it out I encourage you to do so and power to you if it works. I would rather play street wraith (since it takes no mana investment to cantrip you) to draw me into a relevant answer to a game changing spell and Street Wraith will never ever be in this deck. Ever.

i see your point, but consider this. how relevant is a hard counter? sure it never completely answers a threat, but it digs deeper into your deck, and stalls your opponent for a turn. against aggro, on the play you can counter 1 drops and remand essentially becomes a timewalk. against aggro, on the draw you can counter their 2 drop and it essentially becomes a time walk. why does it matter if you snuff out it next turn or thoughtseize it out of their hand? or even daze it if you waste one of their lands? against control you can remand your own spells making it function like a hard counter in some sense. against combo they still have to build up to playing their business spell. if the opponent plays AdN by playing Dark Rit and sacing LED in their upkeep, how relevant is the fact that they have it back in their hand when you will kill them before it even matters? remand is underplayed because people do not see the obvious advantages that result from it. i have always found it to be a phenomenal draw against aggro especially and its decent enough against the other 2. i mean, you had a choice i bet you would run 4 timewalk in here. its just too good an oppurtunity to pass up. but ya if you don't want to run it i can see why. but is sinkhole really that much better? everything else seems like an extremely strong draw all the time, though the synergy between it and daze is pretty good.

Skeggi
10-20-2008, 07:57 AM
against aggro, on the play you can counter 1 drops and remand essentially becomes a timewalk. against aggro, on the draw you can counter their 2 drop and it essentially becomes a time walk.
No. They still get to draw a card and have a land drop. Remand doesn't even come close to a Time Walk.

i mean, you had a choice i bet you would run 4 timewalk in here.
Remand is not a Time Walk. Stop thinking it is.

klaus
10-20-2008, 08:07 AM
I put toghether a quite similar deck (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11408) some time ago and the low threat density turned out to be its major flaw, too. This kind of deck does want to play aggressivly and have a big boy on the table by turn 3. To make sure you can do that consistantly I think you need to up the threat count to 10.

Another reason for that change is the weak lategame those kind of decks tend to have: the LD plan is likely to have failed if you reach turn 18; Sinkholes, Stifles, Daze and Thoughtseize kinda suck now plus there's no way you can establish control due to the entire lack of CA engines like CB or Bob. The bottom line is: adding 2 more threats lowers the chance of having to struggle through undesirable lategame scenarios.

Unfortunately there isn't a single creature out there that could complement the overall strategy. As prerequisites it should boast a max. of CMC 3 (2 would be better), no double color cost, be strong on its own (no other conditions like threshold). Evasion would be good. Somebody please enlighten me if I missed an obvious choice here..
---
On a completely different note: I really like those 3 Edicts in the board their inclusion is completely viable.

zulander
10-20-2008, 08:14 AM
How is this more proactive than thresh... Thresh plays more than 8 creatures, the same cantrip/draw engine and has more solid removal with counterbalance. But at the same time I guess proactive doesn't necessarily mean threat density.

The deck does seem pretty cool though and grats on the finish.

Also, to thelion, if you read his opening post he actually tells you how the deck came about, he didn't just throw a whole bunch of good cards together and say 'ta-daaa'...

As far as your claim the deck doesn't have synergy well then... are you kidding me? What's your definition of synergy?

Mantis
10-20-2008, 08:20 AM
This deck is insane, I just played against it there was squat I could do. Sinkhole, Stifle, Wasteland and Daze just gave my opponent so much tempo and then he just dropped Tombstalker and I was history. Great deck, very elegant design a great job guys!

TheLion
10-20-2008, 08:44 AM
@ TheLion

Please refrain from just attacking an idea/deck after a simple glance and very little reading this is a forum for discussion about magic decks and magic theory. What does synergy mean to you? Does it mean LD with daze? How about thoughtseize which helps you to set up your play decisions for a few turns and helps decide between dropping your threat or further disrupting your opponent? This deck combines some of the best disruption with some of the best countermagic and two of the best finishers in legacy.
Also, do you mean to tell me you want to see a deck that runs shitty cards instead of the best cards for the job this deck is trying to accomplish: stop your opponent from playing magic while you beat him silly with a fuglystick.


What I mean, is that this deck looks so boring and so obvious like Burn.dec, which just packs the best burn spells available. It is nothing really new. It is just another twist with UB staple cards, we see in every deck, tried out in a new mix.
Take the best (good on their own) UB cards and splash Tarmogoyf. Nothing more.
I miss synergies such as in Armageddon Stax, Pox or Aggro Loam. Well, Daze + LD is a synergy, but a very small one. Playing Thoutseize is of course none.
However, I really think this deck is good, just nothing special.

Illissius
10-20-2008, 09:02 AM
I've already mentioned how I think this deck is awesome. There is pretty close to nothing I would change about it.

Interesting to note that it's only two cards different from Dread Stalker -- Tarmogoyf and Sinkhole instead of Dreadnought and Vision Charm. This is a pretty obvious set of swaps, so I should have thought of it. (Though clearly, that makes it not Dread Stalker any more -- they're two different decks).

Many of you are totally misreading this deck. This is one of the most aggressive decks in the format. Would you play Volrath's Stronghold in Suicide Black? Would you play Gigapede in Thrash? You wouldn't play them here either.

As regards the "lack of synergy" and "unimaginative" comments, I think this is one of those decks which seems completely obvious in hindsight, but needed a stroke of genius to have been first discovered. It's as if no one in the past -- what, five? -- years had discovered Threshold as a deck, and someone had just now built it. And yeah, there's no blindingly in-your-face synergy like "holy shit, Counterbalance and Sensei's Divining Top are a combo!", but every card in the deck is nonetheless focused pretty single-mindedly on advancing the game plan. (Basically: by the time the opponent gets to resolve spells which matter, very big monsters for very little mana have reduced their life to very unpositive levels). It's not just a collection of very good cards. It's a collection of very good cards which work very well together. The deck has synergy in the same way Sligh and all the other classic archetypes of Magic have synergy. (EDIT -- And yeah, like Burn. If no one until now had ever thought of building a deck full of efficient burn spells, I would call it a pretty imaginative idea.)

Incidentally, this is a very clear example of a deck I would not play Extirpate in. What was the thinking on Crypt versus Leyline?

And am I right in thinking that the next best threat for this deck after Tombstalker and Tarmogoyf (if you want one) is likely to be Sea Drake?

(Have I mentioned I love this deck? Also.)

EDIT again --


P.S. Tombstalker is a very underplayed, amazing threat.

I frequently wish you could play like, six.

GreenOne
10-20-2008, 09:06 AM
What I mean, is that this deck looks so boring and so obvious like Burn.dec, which just packs the best burn spells available. It is nothing really new. It is just another twist with UB staple cards, we see in every deck, tried out in a new mix.
Take the best (good on their own) UB cards and splash Tarmogoyf. Nothing more.
I miss synergies such as in Armageddon Stax, Pox or Aggro Loam. Well, Daze + LD is a synergy, but a very small one. Playing Thoutseize is of course none.
However, I really think this deck is good, just nothing special.

+1. I'm also bored by those decks. Especially the aggrocontrol ones. It's quite easy to throw together some great cards and do well. I did some testing with a list I threw together in like 10 minutes and it just did well, because it's goodcards.deck

// Lands
1 [UNH] Swamp
4 [U] Underground Sea
4 [A] Tropical Island
1 [7E] Island (2)
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
1 [TSP] Academy Ruins

// Creatures
4 [FD] Trinket Mage
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf
1 [MI] Phyrexian Dreadnought
4 [RAV] Dark Confidant
1 [FUT] Tombstalker

// Spells
1 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus
2 [AP] Pernicious Deed
2 [FD] Engineered Explosives
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [SC] Stifle
4 [LRW] Ponder
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
3 [CS] Counterbalance
3 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [AP] Pernicious Deed
SB: 1 [FD] Engineered Explosives
SB: 4 [10E] Pithing Needle
SB: 4 [TSP] Krosan Grip

Note that this deck has also a lot more sinergies than Team America.

That obviously doesn't mean Team America is just a bad deck nor that it isn't capable of doing well. We're just pointing out that it's nothing new or exciting. Everyone with free 5 mins (and maybe 1 afternoon testing) could do that.

EDIT:


Interesting to note that it's only two cards different from Dread Stalker -- Tarmogoyf and Sinkhole instead of Dreadnought and Vision Charm.

Yeah, that's what we were talking about.

TheLion
10-20-2008, 09:25 AM
Interesting to note that it's only two cards different from Dread Stalker


Yes, as GreenOne already stated, this is exactly what I am talking about.
Too many decks pack the same 50-55 cards over and over again and are presented to the community as a completely new deck.



I think this is one of those decks which [...] needed a stroke of genius to have been first discovered.

You make jokes.

kicks_422
10-20-2008, 09:29 AM
It's just a bunch of good cards thrown together as a 4-off each.

And why exactly is that bad? It played well, didn't it?

Also, I kind of assumed it would be a UWR deck. I love the simplicity, as I'm a big fan of 4-ofs. Good job.

klaus
10-20-2008, 09:33 AM
FoW, Daze, Thoughtseize. These are 12 spells to combat Moon and with Snuff Out, there are 16 of them against Magus.

There are no TA Swamps with Magus online: "no Swampies=no Snuffy Outy"

DalkonCledwin
10-20-2008, 10:09 AM
@ Cathal83

With this deck your dream first turn play against an unknown opponent is thoughtseize with daze in hand, to pull this off you need an Underground Sea in play. While I agree that chalice/trinisphere/blood moon/back to basics decks can be bad for you, I think that adding basics is the wrong approach. With this deck you want to be the aggressor and running basics just to increase your potential percent against a certain archetype will probably also hurt your chances against that same archetype by randomly cutting you off of the color of mana you need early game to make sure your opponent doesn't get their game plan started. Also, basic forest? Am I supposed to just randomly draw into this and kill the dragon stompy player that I failed to stop with my game plan and allowed to land a blood moon with all of my tarmogoyfs? There isn't even a way to fetch it in your list.

In regards to cutting the Bayou read the first paragraph.

Fair enough. I would at the very least like to see some basic lands run in the side board for the purpose of dealing with such match ups as Dragon Stompy. Of course that could entirely be a meta call, but I think for an unknown Meta it could be a very strong strategy!



@ TheLion

Please refrain from just attacking an idea/deck after a simple glance and very little reading this is a forum for discussion about magic decks and magic theory. What does synergy mean to you? Does it mean LD with daze? How about thoughtseize which helps you to set up your play decisions for a few turns and helps decide between dropping your threat or further disrupting your opponent? This deck combines some of the best disruption with some of the best countermagic and two of the best finishers in legacy.
Also, do you mean to tell me you want to see a deck that runs shitty cards instead of the best cards for the job this deck is trying to accomplish: stop your opponent from playing magic while you beat him silly with a fuglystick.

What card would you like to run as less than a 4 of? Every card in this deck you want to see as early as possible depending on the matchup. If you feel this way about this deck you have never played then feel free to not look or comment - it is your choice - but keep in mind that your fellow sourcers see your posts and if you ever create a deck that does extremely well at a legacy event of this size, and you know, plays good cards, people might be reluctant to leave you feedback or even care, so please be respectful.

I completely agree with this Comment, Bourgeoise! You do not usually need negative feedback on a deck thread. That doesn't mean that you aren't going to get such negative feedback. However it isn't usually welcome. My answer to negative feedback is usually to ignore it however.



That being said this deck was a blast to play and worked pretty well against the field. Some matchups I would like to see discussion on improving would be Ichorid and fast aggro decks, destroying all of Peter Rotten's lands then dying to 3 one drop creatures was no fun :(. It's not that I feel this deck needs more threats I would just like to see my threats more often and some of my finish could be chalked up to pure bad luck (like seeing one Tombstalker out of my 8 creatures through 31 cards of my library in round 2). I strongly suggest doing at least a little testing with the deck against various archetypes before posting ways to fix the deck (if it is in fact broken in any way) as it is not quite like anything I've played before.

fair enough, I will have to do some testing... unfortunately I can't proxy the deck up at the moment... so I am not entirely sure how exactly I am going to do that testing...

johanessen
10-20-2008, 10:40 AM
I've been trying a similar deck these last days, but black as main color and lowcost spells to support confidants.

That's my list:

Creatures (11):

4xDark Confidant
4xTarmogoyf
4xHypnotic Specter
3xNantuko Shade

Spells (28):

4xDark Ritual
4xHymn to tourach
4xDuress/Thoughtseize (still have to test alot if bob can support this loss of life)
4xSinhole
4xSmother
4xDaze
4xMana Leak

Lands (21)

4xPolluted Delta
2xWindswept Heath
4xUndergound Sea
3xBayou
4xSwamp
4xWasteland

Sideboard (15)

4xLeyline of the Void (or Tormod... playing Bob)
2xBlue Elemental Blast
2xHydroblast
4xKrosan Grip
3xPernicious Deed

electrolyze
10-20-2008, 11:17 AM
Hey,

Really congratz on the result, the deck looks really great.

As an big fan of tombstalker, eva green and the movie team america, I like this deck very much:laugh:, but I have a few questions:

Do you never run out of beats sometimes? Would shadowmage infiltrator, trygon predator, serendib efreet or the one thats already mentioned, sea drake be good in this deck? Maybe as an 2-off?

Do you ever have troubles with casting sinkhole or hymn if you play it, because there double black? Have you tested spell snare in those slots, maybe it could be really good?

And about the side, dont you miss jitte or plague vs goblins and other aggro decks? And why did you chose crypt over leyline or extirpate?


Maybe i'm gonna play this deck over eva green in the Dutch open championship because with the big amount of combo decks here in the dutch meta I think this deck would be better than eva.


Thanks, electrolyze

Zork
10-20-2008, 11:24 AM
As for the comments about losing to Blood Moon: yes, this deck does lose to blood moon and also packs it Dragon Stompy like no one's business. Trinisphere, Moons, and chalice are all absolutely terrible for this deck, so much so that even when we shuffled up my list of Dragon Stompy and played against invisible god-hands from this deck, DS won half of them.

Consider this, though, how many people play Dragon Stompy? At the Source tourney, I knew of 3 total out of 127 (?). Is that relevant? I think that rather than screwing the deck to add a small chance to beat a bad matchup, you should focus on making it better against the vast majority of decks out there. Not to mention Dragon Stompy is a really mediocre deck (don't bother arguing this, I am right), so your chances of seeing it as a tournament progress decreases as you win.

This deck also beats on random chaff really well.

johanessen
10-20-2008, 11:32 AM
We are playing 4 Stifle... why not adding a single (or two) Dreadnought?

4 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Phyrexian Dreadnought

4 Brainstorm
2 Ponder
4 Stifle
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Thoughtseize
4 Smother (I definately prefer over Snuff Out)
4 Sinkhole

4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
4 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
1 Bayou

Sideboard:
4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Krosan Grip
3 Pernicious Deed (Over Diabolic Edict... a lot of tribes/affinity depending meta)

What do you think?

I'd Like also to include Hymn to tourach... this card is GREAT but what goes out?

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 11:44 AM
@Johanessen: I don't know what deck that is, but it's definitely not Team America. That deck is not tempo oriented, nor is it aggressive. About your second list, we tested Dreadnought and it's an awful fit for this deck. Eating your stifles is terrible. It's much more important to use them on your opponent. Plus, Smother is worse than Snuff Out because it costs mana. The fact that Snuff Out is free is insane tempo. Your opponent spent two mana on Tarmogoyf, while you spent zero killing it. That means you can use your mana to play your own. That's an excellent switch in board position.

@Sasa Batora: Post board you have Blasts which are pretty astounding against Dragon Stompy. Grips too. But yeah, Dragon Stompy is going to be a very difficult match up.

@the Lion: If you're so pissed that there's no innovation here, go tell Wizards to print more good cards. Because there are certain cards that you have to play in an aggressive strategy (like Tarmogoyf), it automatically finds it's way in to certain decks.

Because cards like Daze and Snuff Out and Force of Will are so good, they automatically fit into decks that balance out aggressiveness with disruptive efforts (that are also blue).

As it turns out, I'm interested in winning tournaments. Generally, that means using the cards available, and using them in the best possible situations. The deck is straightforward about it's approach, so there's nothing super synergistic (like Solidarity/Aluren/It's the Fear). The idea is about executing a game plan efficiently and with devastating power.

I tell you what, if you think there's so little innovation, go start a thread about it in Forum Discussion. Get other people to weigh in with their thoughts. Don't do it here.

@Green One: That deck that you posted wouldn't know what Tempo is if it spit in your face. Trinket Mage is the opposite of tempo. Counterbalance and Sensei's Divining Top do not generate tempo. Team America is probably the most tempo oriented deck in the format so far.

@Illisius: The idea behind Crypt was that cantrips find it much more effectively. Since there's no Dark Ritual, cantripping into Leyline is less valuable. Using the cantrips to find threats and Crypt means that some of your disruptive efforts can still be successful. Plus, since they don't cast too many spells, you can Force/Daze Needle (sometimes). I'm not saying Ichorid is an amazing match up, but the ability to find Crypts reasonably reliably is amazing.

@Zulander: Threshold isn't terribly proactive. Counterbalance is NEVER removal. That card cannot deal with things that have already resolved. Plus, keeping mana open to use Sensei's Divining Top slows you down. Threshold is more reactive than anything. It generally uses it's counters to keep problematic spells from resolving, not to disrupt you, but to protect it's strategy. It seems like a small difference, but one that changes how games play out in reality.

@Vacrix: Remand would be bad in this deck simply because it doesn't do enough in certain match ups. What you failed to consider is that remanding a one mana creature is actually the worst thing ever. Because they can easily replay it. So then, if you hold it for another creature, you're slowing yourself down. It's awful against aggressive strategies, while only being of mild usefulness against Threshold. Using it to counter your own spells is nifty, but more likely than not, irrelevant. If you were to try to protect a Tarmogoyf in this fashion, you already have four mana. Having four mana against a control deck is generally poor for you. Plus, remand rarely helps against removal because good removal is cheap. Remand is only good if you're going to win in the next turn (or during that turn in the case of Solidarity).

@Eric: You are absolutely right. I will definitely give you a high five the next time I see you. Very well done.

socialite
10-20-2008, 11:53 AM
Congratulations on your finish. This build looks like a beast, interesting how such a simple setup can be so effective. I recently bought a set of Sinkholes, going to have to put this together.

This may seem be stupid.

Did the fact that Ponder is a sorcery ever come up. I feel like an Instant dig card such as Opt might be more effective since you can leave one U open until end of turn bluffing Stifle on more occasions, not quite sure how effective this would be, Opt does lack the library manipulation of Ponder especially with the inclusion of eight fetches.

TheLion
10-20-2008, 12:37 PM
Ok, onto the decklist:

I once read an article on starcitygames.com about Pithing Needle actually being a tempo card (more than a SB card), because it shuts down fetchlands.

Did you consider it for that purpose?

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 12:37 PM
Congratulations on your finish. This build looks like a beast, interesting how such a simple setup can be so effective. I recently bought a set of Sinkholes, going to have to put this together.

This may seem be stupid.

Did the fact that Ponder is a sorcery ever come up. I feel like an Instant dig card such as Opt might be more effective since you can leave one U open until end of turn bluffing Stifle on more occasions, not quite sure how effective this would be, Opt does lack the library manipulation of Ponder especially with the inclusion of eight fetches.

Interesting you should say that, Jesse Krieger actually had that exact idea as well. The problem is that ponder is just too good at what it does, which is dig for your 2nd land drop/force/daze/snuff out, or finding threats. With so many free spells in the deck it's just fine. Plus, with sinkhole and wasteland, stifle is generally quite relevant well beyond turns 1 and 2.

The beauty of the mana disruption of this deck, and the reason that I am now thinking Dave is probably just right about sinkhole being better than hymn maindeck (we spun in circles about this more than once), is that each piece compliments the other. If your opponent safe cracks fetches for non-basics, they open themselves up to wasteland. If they sit on fetches, they open themselves up to stifle. If they fetch basics to get around wasteland, sinkhole wrecks them by branching off colors. It really is a beautiful thing when the deck is operating the way it was designed to.


EDIT:


Ok, onto the decklist:

I once read an article on starcitygames.com about Pithing Needle actually being a tempo card (more than a SB card), because it shuts down fetchlands.

Did you consider it for that purpose?

Yes, we did, Eva Green style (3 of MD). We tried it over stifle actually, which is pretty much the only place it could go, and the blue count was just too low to reliably have one of the best tempo cards at your disposal online: force of will. Needle is great at shutting off aether vial against goblins, but your goblins matchup is actually surprisingly good. Also, needling fetchlands is not as reliable as having access to stifle. Stifle seemed like a weak spot in the deck for a while but it was pretty awesome at the Source tourney.

Edit again:

@Electrolyze: I knew you'd like this deck :smile:. As for adding additional threats, we tried it, but the list is VERY tight. In order to maintain the amount of disruption you need for the deck to operate well, you kinda need to just roll with the 8 creatures. There really aren't any creatures that come close to goyf or stalker anyway for something like this. I actually tried spell snare over sinkhole and was not very impressed with it, but that was at a local tournament, so it wasn't exactly exhaustive testing. Sinkhole is very strong here though. Don't worry about goblins, you are ahead in the matchup. Turn 1 vial is the worst thing you can see from them, but even then you have stifle and huge creatures to race them. Post board blasts help alot.

J.V.
10-20-2008, 02:11 PM
Hey Dan, are you going to write a full tournament report? I've taken a real liking to this deck and would like to see how all your match ups through the day broke down, the only games I saw were the ones against Carl and Rodney.

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 02:19 PM
I'll try to put one together (hopefully soon, so the details won't escape me too badly). These were my matchups:

round 1: landstill (win) - Cody M.
round 2: TES (win) - Forgot...
round 3: ugrw threshold (win) - Forgot...
round 4: goblins (win) - Hunter (top 8 goblins player)
round 5: u/g canadian thresh (win) - White Ghost
round 6: ID with Dreadstill - Ben
round 7: ID with TES - Jimmy P.
top 8: epic painter (win) - Carl
top 4: Ur dreadstill (loss) - Rodney

I totally dropped the ball and threw away the piece of paper I was using to keep track of everything, but I'll try my best to remember what happened.

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 02:34 PM
If you remember any names, that would be fantastic.

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 02:36 PM
Edited for what I remember.

kiwi
10-20-2008, 03:05 PM
I really like this deck, what do you think about to playing hymm to tourach rather than sinkhole ?

I dont have sinkholes and Im thinking about playing this deck in a tourney this wekeend.

adrieng
10-20-2008, 03:15 PM
This deck looks great like a mix between EVA green and tempo threshold.
Have you thought of smallpox (maybe in the place of sinkhole) ?
It could be worth testing. As I see the deck I think it plays tempo at the beginning of the game ( disrupting opponet) then play your fatty and win if opponent doesn't have time to recover.

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 03:20 PM
Smallpox with eight creatures is awful. Plus, it's symmetrical (and thus, card disadvantage). You have few lands, and fewer creatures.

If you have a creature in play, it's likely a dead draw.

If you draw it later when you need something else to hit them with, it's likely a dead draw.

What the fuck is the deal with Smallpox? The card is fucking terrible. Especially in this deck.

@Kiwi: I like Sinkhole over Hymn. It's a solid addition that makes sure that the early game lasts longer, while supplementing Daze and Wasteland/Stifle. If you wanted to play Hymn, it would have to be in a meta game that was full of Dazes. Even then, I'd prefer Sinkhole.

Having the ability to cut them off from lands regardless of how they approach things (sitting on fetches, getting lands to play spells, or getting basics) means that you have a strong method of keeping them from playing Magic long enough to put them away with a ridiculously good creature.

yawg07
10-20-2008, 04:05 PM
I don't get why people have get all shitty about "OMGZ0RZ It's all just good cards put together! It isn't exciting!"
So what? If putting all the good aggro-control and tempo cards in the format together in one deck works ... then why not do it?
Decks don't have to be exciting and new to win. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it clogs up the deck and fucks you.

socialite
10-20-2008, 04:11 PM
I don't get why people have get all shitty about "OMGZ0RZ It's all just good cards put together! It isn't exciting!"
So what? If putting all the good aggro-control and tempo cards in the format together in one deck works ... then why not do it?
Decks don't have to be exciting and new to win. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it clogs up the deck and fucks you.

Id also like to point out that I would play this deck over Threshold, which I suppose it is similar to and the reason why people are mad about the lack of "innovation", any day of the week.

Threshold is boring beyond belief Id rather take a cheese grater to my ballsack then play that shit, this looks fun.

GreenOne
10-20-2008, 04:24 PM
@Green One: That deck that you posted wouldn't know what Tempo is if it spit in your face. Trinket Mage is the opposite of tempo. Counterbalance and Sensei's Divining Top do not generate tempo. Team America is probably the most tempo oriented deck in the format so far.


I wasn't saying that the deck I posted was a great example of Tempo-deck. In fact, it's not a tempo-deck at all.
It was just an example of how a complete idiot (in this case, me*) can build a good deck putting together the best cards in the format given 15 mins of free time. I'm not saying that this deck is bad, I'm not just calling it "a great innovation". This deck is, obviously, good, and this discussion should probably be closed. We made a point, that's it.

*I'm really a bad player with any Aggro-Control or Control strategy. I just can pilot only Aggro, Combo and Combo-Control decks well.

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 05:05 PM
I wasn't saying that the deck I posted was a great example of Tempo-deck. In fact, it's not a tempo-deck at all.
It was just an example of how a complete idiot (in this case, me*) can build a good deck putting together the best cards in the format given 15 mins of free time. I'm not saying that this deck is bad, I'm not just calling it "a great innovation". This deck is, obviously, good, and this discussion should probably be closed. We made a point, that's it.

*I'm really a bad player with any Aggro-Control or Control strategy. I just can pilot only Aggro, Combo and Combo-Control decks well.

Show me testing results, then I'll tell you if it's good or not. To give you an example, we spent about a month and a half tweaking just the manabase.
Looks are deceiving.

zulander
10-20-2008, 05:11 PM
Why aren't additional beats in the board? Maybe 2/3 Sea Drake/Spiritmonger/Serendib Efreet/Werebears?

Also, with only 8 creatures in your deck, would you keep a hand with 2/3 land and no creatures if you had a cantrip? what if you didn't?

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 05:44 PM
Why aren't additional beats in the board? Maybe 2/3 Sea Drake/Spiritmonger/Serendib Efreet/Werebears?

Also, with only 8 creatures in your deck, would you keep a hand with 2/3 land and no creatures if you had a cantrip? what if you didn't?

For what it's worth, spiritmonger was the 16th card in my sideboard. True story.

Boarding additional threats isn't out of the question, but I'm not really sure where I'd want them. Control? Seems like hymn would be a better option there in the board.

As far as the threat-less hand, if the disruption was good enough, sure, I'd keep it...and did so many a times.

rsaunder
10-20-2008, 05:44 PM
It seems like it would be hard to consistently represent Stifle in the 20 land deck with nine fetchlands, particularly when you're playing Thoughtseize, Ponder, and Tarmogoyf. To do so would seem like it slows you down as well, and possibly have some cost associated with Brainstorm.I think stifle disserves a tad more discussion here. I love the card to death. It's protection against wasteland, land destruction, and protection against storm combo in one card. It works great in a reactive aggro-control deck like thrash or control like dreadstill.

Sadly though, this is a proactive agro-control deck. I've only played a few games with the deck so far, but it strikes me as much like Eva Green or Deadguy in the way that it likes to frequently tap out in the first or second main phases. Just hypothetically, if you had to replace stifle, what would you replace it with? I desperately want it to be another proactive control card because I just feel as though it goes against the entire strategy of the deck.

Let the flaming begin, but for the record I know stifle is a good card. I just think it might not belong here.

frogboy
10-20-2008, 05:45 PM
Also, with only 8 creatures in your deck, would you keep a hand with 2/3 land and no creatures if you had a cantrip? what if you didn't?

It's not as if you're gonna run out Tombstalker on turn two.

edit:
for the record I know stifle is a good card.

When did this become so axiomatic?

rsaunder
10-20-2008, 05:50 PM
It became axiomatic when every deck in the format started playing 6-8 fetches.

Yes, I had to look up what axiomatic meant.

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 05:59 PM
Don't forget that even if you cut Stifle (which quite a few people down here hate), you should replace it with a blue card.

We've been over this for weeks. Stifle isn't my favorite card in the deck, but I acknowledge that it's probably about the best of the worst options in the deck. I think it's important because Sinkhole + Wasteland (and by extension Stifle + Wasteland) is never enough to actually keep your opponent off of mana. Eva Green and Thrash are examples of this. Having played many games with and against the both of them, I've found them to have too little land destruction to maintain the early game long enough for me to have the devastating impact necessary to win the game. Eva Green does this better than Thrash because Sinkhole is stronger than Stifle, but still occasionally doesn't do enough. Sometimes you only get one Sinkhole and one Wasteland and your opponent recovers, whereas if you'd had one more spell, he would have been locked out of the game. It's happened too many times to just be anecdotal evidence.

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 06:00 PM
Yes, I had to look up what axiomatic meant.

I like that word.

But yeah, don't get me wrong, we tried to replace stifle. The problem was the blue card count for force of will, because you really, really want force to be reliable. I don't know what else would go in that slot. Maybe hymn to tourach? Once again, if hymn were blue...

It seems like stifle would go against the deck's strategy of tapping out to play sinkhole or thoughtseize, but it doesn't always play out like that. Also, with the other LD, stifle stays relevant for a longer period of time. The deck ideally wants 3 lands in play (preferably sea, trop, bayou), and then things start getting stupid. I understand your argument entirely, but I'm not sure if there really is another option there if we want to stick to this kind of strategy. Like I said before it was good to me all day.

Edit: Damn you, Dave.

frogboy
10-20-2008, 06:02 PM
It became axiomatic when every deck in the format started playing 6-8 fetches.

So people just forgot the card existed for four years? I'm willing to stipulate that your Wasteland/Sinkhole deck is probably the most reasonable place to play your conditional land destruction spell, but it's usually pretty easy to finesse your first two land drops to avoid it. When Scourge came out, people jammed it into everything and then realized it sucked and quit playing it, and that was in a format where it was one mana, kold target Dragon player.

edit: what if you just played Spell Snare?

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 06:18 PM
Spell Snare was beyond awful in testing. It was even more conditional than Stifle, while being worse.

Stifle does have more targets than just fetches though. Countering the comes-into-play abilities of various Survival creatures helps that match immensely, while countering Storm triggers helps the combo match.

I'm not even saying the card is good, but it's about the best of the worst options.

rsaunder
10-20-2008, 06:28 PM
What about pithing needle? You might be able to finesse the mnabase to be able to hit fetches. It's proactive, kinda land destruction, and hits all sorts of other stuff.

Although the manabase for this deck would be awful if you tried to cut a color of U fetch.

EDIT: Nevermind. There's no way it could work.

Hanni
10-20-2008, 06:46 PM
SECRET NINJA EDIT#2!: How about extirpate to make the land D you do play more devistating? I know it's awful tempo-wise in probably 80% of all situations, but it might be worth a shot.

You're still forgetting about the blue spell count. In this mindset, the deck would be better off playing Hymn because Hymn can occasionally take lands from the opponent's hand while actually being a good card. Extirpate is bad in this sort of deck, because it never wants to get to the really late game to see its effect.

Holding U open isn't necessarily bad. If you're tapping out to cast BB spells, so what? That means you decided that playing said spell was better than casting Stifle. If you hold open blue but don't cast Stifle, it either means you didn't have a relevant play on your mainphase, or you misplayed. The fact that Stifle is relevant at hitting fetchlands throughout the entirety of the game while still have other relevant targets is in fact strong. Additionally, you also need to weigh in that in some games, you Daze, bouncing a land back to hand, and you actually will have only 1 land (U) open on the next turn to cast that Stifle. The deck only has so many 1cc plays to fill out the early game curve, where Stifle fits in really nice.

Lastly, it's also interesting that the opponent either plays around it (which in itself generates some tempo), or they don't know it's in the deck and walk right into it.

Like I said, I tried this concept a good while back, and Wasteland/Stifle/Sinkhole performed very well for me as an LD suite.

Isamaru
10-20-2008, 07:01 PM
This looks just like the deck that someone at my Legacy tournament played (or was it everyone? I forget now...)

Keep up the gaod work and congrats on the finish!

aTn
10-20-2008, 07:24 PM
Nice deck !
I'm a bit tired of playing Vorosh-Still (no offense Bardo, your deck is awesome, but I've been playing it for almost a year now), so I guess I'll give Team America a try at my next local Legacy tournament, which is this thursday...

I was wondering (having not tested the deck yet), how are the UGW-Threshold, Swan-Threshold, UGB-Threshold, Landstill and It's the Fear match-ups ? Are decks packing recurrence (like It's the Fear or Aggro-loam) hard to deal with ?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and congrats on the finish !

Slayer001
10-20-2008, 07:35 PM
First, gratz on the finish ;)

I like this deck also, because I like eva green, but this is just like the better eva green. mayeb I will proxy it up for some testing at my local store and will post some matchups in here.
So for now I don't have nothing more to say because I haven't tested it yet, but keep up the good work and I realy like the idea behind this deck.

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 07:55 PM
Team America beats the piss out of It's the Fear. Since Dan's done the playing against Landstill, I believe him when he says it beats that too.

Threshold (with Counterbalance) is a bit rough. I'd say that it's about 50-50, possibly even favored for Threshold. Post board, with Grips and Edicts, it gets a lot better.

If they don't have Counterbalance, the match up is a lot easier.

Guy I Don't Know
10-20-2008, 09:28 PM
I don't know if you know about the card called encroach? it is a duress for nonbasic lands... i thought it could maybe fit in the deck, ive wanted to play a deck similar to this deck with encroach, wasteland, sinkhole/hymn, and stifle and this seems like that deck.

socialite
10-20-2008, 10:11 PM
I don't know if you know about the card called encroach? it is a duress for nonbasic lands... i thought it could maybe fit in the deck, ive wanted to play a deck similar to this deck with encroach, wasteland, sinkhole/hymn, and stifle and this seems like that deck.

Talk about tunnel vision.

Carabas
10-20-2008, 11:06 PM
People have been talking about extra threats. Would Quirion Dryad work as a 1 or 2-of?

nitewolf9
10-20-2008, 11:10 PM
If you run dryad, you want to see it early. It sucks as a topdeck. I don't think it's worth running as a less than 4-of. If I were going to run a 1-of threat, I'd probably just run a 1-of cantrip instead, like portent. But why the hell would I do that.

Deep6er
10-20-2008, 11:11 PM
People have been talking about extra threats. Would Quirion Dryad work as a 1 or 2-of?

We've tried it before. Plus, the fact that it's not a four of makes it worse. You do know that in order for that card to be good, it has to be played on turn 2, right?

Otherwise, it's awful.

We've tried most in the way of extra threats, and there are two conclusions.

1) There's nothing we really want to take out of the main deck for them.

2) There's nothing strong enough to play.

That's the problem. There needs to be a new creature that's just as good as Tombstalker/Tarmogoyf for it to be playable in Team America.

nitewolf9
10-21-2008, 12:08 AM
Something like this would suffice:

retarded rowboat :u: :u:
creature - rowboat assassin

http://www.starfishisland.ca/victoria/rowboat.jpg

islandwalk

This rowboat is fucking retarded...

4/4

troopatroop
10-21-2008, 12:13 AM
Something like this would suffice:

retarded rowboat :u: :u:
creature - rowboat assassin

islandwalk

This rowboat is fucking retarded...

4/4

What about Shadowmage Infiltrator? I know it's been mentioned before, but I haven't seen a comment on it. Too slow?

darkalucard
10-21-2008, 12:23 AM
Did you test:


Nantuko Shade
Trinket Mage


and

Why not more Bloodstained Mire's to get the Bayou?

Why not 1x Island and 1x Swamp?

And you can cut a blue card, you can run FoW with 16 blue cards, and you have 20 blue cards.

Deep6er
10-21-2008, 12:26 AM
Because the Bayou isn't as important as having Islands for Daze.

Basics can interfere with your strategy more often than not because you have a lot of early colored mana requirements in Sinkhole, Stifle, and Daze (which counts because you need an Island). Plus, since you need a Swamp in play for Snuff Out to work, that's important too.

Shade was too slow, and Trinket Mage is fucking awful. That card is the opposite of tempo.

You should NOT run 16 blue cards in a deck that needs Force as much as this deck does. You want to cast every single card in this deck. Holding a Brainstorm for Force is very different from holding a Stifle and it gives you different options when playing. I've tried only sixteen blue cards in earlier versions, but it ended up having an extreme impact on the amount of times I was able to cast Force of Will.

nitewolf9
10-21-2008, 12:39 AM
What about Shadowmage Infiltrator? I know it's been mentioned before, but I haven't seen a comment on it. Too slow?

Precisely. He just doesn't end the game quickly, and the 3cc hurts. Obviously drawing extra cards is good but that's not really how this deck wants to win. Hypnotic specter would be a better creature for the purpose of creating CA, but he's not blue and also costs 3.

Honestly, there was only 1 game all day that I got screwed on by not drawing a threat in time. And that just happens with every deck. In testing the 8 threats have been fine.

conboy31
10-21-2008, 01:01 AM
I plan on sleeving this deck up and giving it a try. As for the debate over what other creatures could supplement the deck instead of stifle... what choices are on the same level as: A) Sea Drake B) Serendib Efreet. Despite the decks minimal curve I think having daze and sea drake would be less than stellar. Efreet is fairly efficient and evasive but certainly not a huge threat with no equipment. Equipment can't be added due to room and the blue count.

Happy Gilmore
10-21-2008, 01:08 AM
The list for the most part is as tuned as it gets. As said before the discussion of Hymn vs. Sinkhole is the only thing I can think of as far as maindeck changes. The deck doesn't need more threats, it doesn't need to change. I personally would like to find room in the main for 2x SDT, but I get this feeling that the deck may not be able to support its mana dependency. I was hoping the deck could sport a 1SDT, 3 CB sb option. Although, I can't really think of a matchup I want to bring it in for that hasn't already been covered by other SB cards.

Regarding Threshold Matchups,

5c is slightly ahead in the brief testing we did thus far. Thoughseize/CB/STP/Mystic Enforcer/and Goose do a great job in this matchup. And it seems that even when the opponent draws 2-4 LD effects it really doesn't seem to matter. Many times I would just drop a turn 2 CB and ride it to victory with cantrips alone.

The matchup is probably about 55-45 in 5c's favor. I want to think that lists without CB are much much worse although, the Stifle/waste package of UGR Canadian thresh plus Spell snare might give the deck fits. And Moon seems like it could be a real beating. All in all it is probably 50-50, which is prity amazing when you take into account that the deck doesn't play CB itself.

aTn
10-21-2008, 01:50 AM
While we're at it (it might be a stupid idea), but why not Trigon Predator in a CB-Top infested meta (in particular against Threshold - who almost always plays CB in my meta) ?

Thanks for the tips and comments Deep6er (and others)...

I think I'll run Hymns in the Sinkhole slots and see where it takes me against Threshold.

The random fast aggro (or vial based aggro a la counter slivers) seems a pain. Guess I'll see when I test it.

Isamaru
10-21-2008, 02:43 AM
Am I missing something? The rowboat does exist. It's called Dandân.

Deep6er
10-21-2008, 02:49 AM
Dandan has an ass of one, while having Islandhome instead of Islandwalk. Very different.

n00bas4urus_r3x
10-21-2008, 03:19 AM
What about something like Benthic Djinn or Moroii? They're pretty beefy and pitch to FoW too.

Illissius
10-21-2008, 03:52 AM
And am I right in thinking that the next best threat for this deck after Tombstalker and Tarmogoyf (if you want one) is likely to be Sea Drake?

nitewolf9
10-21-2008, 11:53 AM
Sea Drake is probably the next best thing, but I don't think it's necessary.

socialite
10-21-2008, 04:32 PM
Sea Drake is nifty, but to be honest, not running Chrome Mox like Faerie Stompy pretty much takes away the brokenness of the card. For it to actually return 2 lands is less than stellar especially since its a 4/3 for 3 CC Non Black allowing it to be killed by pretty much every form of removal in the game.

Im going to have to call out Sea Drake as being garbage -in this deck- especially with the inclusion of Daze already.

On a side note can people stop suggesting fucking terrible cards/deck lists. It is really non-productive. Some of you guys aren't even close to having suggestions that are on par with what this deck is trying to do to the extent that I go WHAT when I read some of the posts. Like mom always said if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it. Yes I realize I just broke that rule.

Edit: Perhaps Dave and Nightwolf should list cards already tried, as opposed to "did you try this, would XXXXXXX work?".

Deep6er
10-21-2008, 06:00 PM
I'll go through the ones I remember off the top of my head.

Bitterblossom
Quirion Dryad
Vinelasher Kudzu
Street Wraith
Accumulated Knowledge
Hymn to Tourach
Spell Snare
Smother
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Dark Confidant
Yixlid Jailer
Predict
Rushing River
Wipe Away
Nantuko Shade
Force Spike

That's the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'll probably remember more as time goes by.

Important note, all of them were bad. Or, for whatever reason, I didn't like them.

To continue, I like Sinkhole a lot more than I like Hymn to Tourach. I think having 12 disruption spells that target land allow you to devastate any deck that looks to reach three or so lands. Or decks that rely on multiple colors.

nitewolf9
10-21-2008, 06:08 PM
We also tried dreadnought (randomly amazing, but mostly garbage).

That was in the main for a bit a while back, then in the board over diabolic edict (for zoo/sligh type decks).

johanessen
10-21-2008, 09:14 PM
Maybe Hypnotic Specter... the BB i suppose may be a pain...

What about a couple of Anavolver? Too slow??

socialite
10-21-2008, 10:16 PM
Maybe Hypnotic Specter... the BB i suppose may be a pain...

What about a couple of Anavolver? Too slow??

This is a joke right?




As far as Sinkhole versus Hymn to Tourach. I really have to side with Nightwolf. Sinkhole complements Stifle and Wasteland far to well. Fetches, Basics, and Non Basics all get hit by this deck. Replacing it with Hymn allows basic lands to be a factor.

Sinkhole is a scalpel, Hymn is a Bazooka. Its to much of a shot in the dark compared to Sinkhole which seems like it would be much more effective when paired with Stifle and Wasteland.

Edit: I have been racking my brain lately for an additional creature to add to this deck but so far nothing good has come up. Upon actually playing with this deck Im not so sure it even needs it. Both Goyf and Stalker are solid clocks once they drop for obvious reasons. The ability of this deck to just play the suicide role is incredible, denying opponents the of the basic necessity of land is just too good in this format which allows only 8 threats to be relatively effective.

Illissius
10-22-2008, 09:40 AM
What about using Seal of Primordium in the sideboard instead of Krosan Grip? How often do your opponents manage to assemble Countertop through all your disruption? (Honest question -- I don't know.)

nitewolf9
10-22-2008, 11:35 AM
We actually thought of trying out seal, but grip is just better in the matchups where you need it (namely threshold). Taking care of Top or killing counterbalance relatively reliably is what you need for that matchup. Against control I'd probably want seal over grip, even control with counterbalance, but threshold tends to see more play.

I will note that seal is generally much better against chalice aggro, so it's not entirely out of the question depending on what you expect.

My opponents were able to assemble counter top through my disruption a good amount of the time, but the problem was that they wouldn't have many resources to devote to putting a threat on the table afterwards (or answer a threat of mine), and I would just cast a tombstalker and snuff out their goyf through their counerbalance and win. It literally happened just like that in about 3 games. On the flip side, I did lose to counterbalance in a couple of games as well.

lolosoon
10-22-2008, 11:38 AM
I've playtested this deck a bit and I'm loving it ! It's like a controlish Eva Green, a deck I've played a lot this lasts months.

Still, I have some trouble against burn and Swan Thresh.

The first due to their quick clock and stifle-wasteland proof manabase, the later due to the stifle, daze and spellSnare that counter a bunch of my manadenial plan (sinkhole is quite useless), and their own stifle+wastelands that occasionnaly cripple my own manabase (the burn to the dome finish is painful too).

The 4 BEB-like effects seem to be not enough vs burn, as the edicts vs Thresh (to avoid too much pain from the SnuffOuts I always switch them) not convincing.

In short, switching from Eva Green to this deck seems to have not improved my bad matchup (except fast combo vs which it is more consistent).

I'm not accustomed yet to 'team america' (man this name feels so cocky !) so it might be the pilot and not the deck, but have you encountered the same troubles ?!



Moreover, I dislike Crypts in SB. I'd rather put Extirpates in that slot cause it's quite good vs Ichorid (plus it dodges needle and bounce), but is a better card to side in (in place of SnuffOut) vs combo like Fetchland Tendrils and ANT where snuffOut, BEB, Grips and Edicts are useless.


Whadoyathink ?

nitewolf9
10-22-2008, 11:56 AM
Is burn a good deck all of a sudden? Seriously, 4 blasts is plenty against them. Just focus on sticking an early tarmogoyf or stalker and finding cheap countermagic. It's definitely not like you're playing counter/top against them (where they'd just lose outright), but if you want a good board card because burn is everywhere for some reason, then try hymn to tourach (probably over edict). That card bends them over a barrel.

As far as swan thresh, does that deck actually play stifle/wasteland? I did testing against Canadian Thrash and was ahead in the matchup, but it seems like getting to 4 mana would be difficult for swan thresh to do. Blood moon is a beating though. THAT's the card I'd worry about.

Oh yeah, and extirpate is terrible against ichorid. Crypt beats them. We tested this. Alot. Also, I don't think your tendrils matchup needs more help.

Deep6er
10-22-2008, 01:17 PM
I've playtested this deck a bit and I'm loving it ! It's like a controlish Eva Green, a deck I've played a lot this lasts months.

Still, I have some trouble against burn and Swan Thresh.

The first due to their quick clock and stifle-wasteland proof manabase, the later due to the stifle, daze and spellSnare that counter a bunch of my manadenial plan (sinkhole is quite useless), and their own stifle+wastelands that occasionnaly cripple my own manabase (the burn to the dome finish is painful too).

The 4 BEB-like effects seem to be not enough vs burn, as the edicts vs Thresh (to avoid too much pain from the SnuffOuts I always switch them) not convincing.

In short, switching from Eva Green to this deck seems to have not improved my bad matchup (except fast combo vs which it is more consistent).

I'm not accustomed yet to 'team america' (man this name feels so cocky !) so it might be the pilot and not the deck, but have you encountered the same troubles ?!



Moreover, I dislike Crypts in SB. I'd rather put Extirpates in that slot cause it's quite good vs Ichorid (plus it dodges needle and bounce), but is a better card to side in (in place of SnuffOut) vs combo like Fetchland Tendrils and ANT where snuffOut, BEB, Grips and Edicts are useless.


Whadoyathink ?


I fail to see how you're having troubles against Burn. Sinkhole is stellar against them, while counter magic is insanely good against them. Burn is like an awful combo deck. Every single card you stop slows down the combo by a turn.

Swan Thresh? Why are you having trouble against that? They have dead cards in the form of Swans and their burn can't really hit your creatures. Even if they're playing Stifle + Wasteland, it's not all that big a deal. Your mana base is functionally more stable than theirs.

I've never encountered troubles like the ones you're mentioning. Don't switch the Snuff Outs for Edicts. That's not how it's supposed to work. The Edicts complement the Snuff Outs and ensure that they never have enough creatures so that your Tarmogoyf will go the distance. Don't be afraid of life loss. I can't stress that enough.

Extirpate? That card is fucking awful. It doesn't beat Ichorid. Why the hell do you want extra cards against Combo? You said it yourself, the build is more consistent against fast combo. Crypt is strong against Ichorid. Extirpate is fucking terrible, and it sucks. Period. That card does not deserve inclusion in this deck. Board in Blasts and beat Combo anyway.

Ichorid is already a rough match up. Don't make it worse by playing Extirpate instead of Crypt. That's just a bad idea right there.

jericohs@cottage
10-22-2008, 01:33 PM
It's good though...Why would a deck such as eva green need blue though...ever. LOL Anyone? Anyone care to join in? I thought 4x sinkhole, 4x wasteland, 4x thoughtseize, 4x hymn de tourach was enough disruption that there would be nothing left to stop eva???

I guess my question is why play this over Eva Green?

Mirrislegend
10-22-2008, 01:38 PM
Hand disruption doesn't protect your game plan as well as counterspells do. And hand disruption decks just don't get there.

aTn
10-22-2008, 01:40 PM
I've tested the deck a bit and I like it.

Partly motivated by the fact that my meta has quite a bit of CB-Top (in particular in Threshold), I'm currently testing the following alternatives in the Sinkhole slots:

1. Spell Snare ;
2. Engineered Explosives (answers both aggro decks, EtW and thresholdesque decks in my meta) ;
3. Hymn to Tourach.

Since I don't have infinite playtest time (yet), I'd like to complement my testing experience by your opinions (preferably based on testing rather than mental masturbation).

-----
Aside
-----


As far as Sinkhole versus Hymn to Tourach. I really have to side with Nightwolf. Sinkhole complements Stifle and Wasteland far to well. Fetches, Basics, and Non Basics all get hit by this deck.


There is an obvious synergy between Stifle, Wasteland and Sinkhole, but that is not an argument for or against swapping Sinkhole with Hymn, since you only talk about one side of the argument (one other side would be the benefits of Hymn).


Replacing it with Hymn allows basic lands to be a factor.

My two cents based on very little testing of Team America (about 15 matches):

I think the principal merit of having Sinkhole (instead of Hymn) is to increase the probability (and frequency) of land disruption you send your opponent's way - it has very little to do with the fact that you can hit basics with it, a very situational play anyhow (from my experience).


I think stifle disserves a tad more discussion here. I love the card to death. It's protection against wasteland, land destruction, and protection against storm combo in one card. It works great in a reactive aggro-control deck like thrash or control like dreadstill.

Let the flaming begin, but for the record I know stifle is a good card. I just think it might not belong here.

In my meta there's quite a bit of P. Deed going on (It's the Fear, Landstill, etc.), so Stifle is useful in that regard. Of course that makes you play a more reactive game for those match-ups...

rsaunder
10-22-2008, 01:51 PM
People were mentioning Sea Drake earlier in the thread, but it was dismissed due to lack of brokenness. What about the other blue flier, Serendeb Efritti? He pitches to FOW, dodges bolts all day and doesn't have MUCH of a drawback.

He's nowhere near as good as goyf or stalker, but for creatures 9 and 10 for people who feel the deck is light on threats, he could be an option.

EDIT: @The Burn Matchup: Hold forces for his Price of Progresses. Other than that, destroy lands and you should win games. It's the same as thresh and deadguy always played against burn, except you get the best of both worlds to combat the damage.

Deep6er
10-22-2008, 01:51 PM
It's good though...Why would a deck such as eva green need blue though...ever. LOL Anyone? Anyone care to join in? I thought 4x sinkhole, 4x wasteland, 4x thoughtseize, 4x hymn de tourach was enough disruption that there would be nothing left to stop eva???

I guess my question is why play this over Eva Green?

Simple. You trade out some of the creatures in Eva Green for more disruptive elements. There's far more disruption in Team America than there is in Eva Green. The thought processes are similar though. However, one huge mark in Team America's favor is the fact that counter magic is insanely strong in the format today. Team America, hands down, has a better combo match than Eva Green, which is important. Additionally, it has a better match against control because disruption is better than creatures against control decks.

Eva Green needs blue to stop the top decks and early plays that get in through discard. Especially because Hymn doesn't choose the cards that damage your opponent the most. Sometimes random is good, sometimes random is bad. It's the nature of random things. Counter magic and it's selectivity is more reliable.

As it turns out, Eva Green can definitely get screwed by bad draws as well. That's why Brainstorm and Ponder are so amazing. They can help you dig for answers, or find you threats. They excel at helping your game plan be malleable enough to adapt to the situation and kill your opponent.

@ATN: Don't play Spell Snare, it's pretty awful. Explosives too. It's too mana intensive and you'll lose quite a bit of tempo every time you use it to destroy something that isn't Counterbalance. Even then, destroying Counterbalance is going to cost around five mana (because you want to set Explosives for two, but pay more to get around Counterbalance), which is already more than double what they paid for Counterbalance.

Personally, I don't like Hymn in this deck. It's not going to be of much use against Counterbalance decks because it only has a random chance of taking out Counterbalance (as long as you're on the play), and on the draw it can't.

nitewolf9
10-22-2008, 01:55 PM
As said before, in a heavy threshold metagame hymn might be very strong in the sinkhole spot. I would not run engineered explosives in the board, let alone in the maindeck. Spell snare is another option, but it was kinda weak in the testing that was done with it. It is another good card against aggro control, though. It's just not hymn good.

About the question of why play this over Eva Green, it's pretty much because force of will and daze are retarded tempo cards and having a cantrip engine makes the deck more consistent. Eva Green is still a great deck, you will get explosive starts with ritual and you don't lose to moon effects, but Team America is a better choice against combo and has an even more ridiculous LD package to keep control/survival down.

Edit: Damn you, Dave.

jericohs@cottage
10-22-2008, 01:56 PM
I've tested the deck a bit and I like it.


Since I don't have infinite playtest time (yet), I'd like to complement my testing experience by your opinions (preferably based on testing rather than mental masturbation).

LOL, haha



My two cents based on very little testing of Team America (about 15 matches):

I think the principal merit of having Sinkhole (instead of Hymn) is to increase the probability (and frequency) of land disruption you send your opponent's way - it has very little to do with the fact that you can hit basics with it, a very situational play anyhow (from my experience).

To my knowledge, and also preferably by testing rather than mental masterbation... I lost countless matches vs my buddy because of the power of hymn de tourach and its ability to disrupt your hand. In the end, I would play hymn de tourach before sinkhole. The question is main hand disruption vs LD... If your lucky Hymn can do both.

aTn
10-22-2008, 01:59 PM
Sea Drake is nifty, but to be honest, not running Chrome Mox like Faerie Stompy pretty much takes away the brokenness of the card.

That's why some (winning) UGb-Threshold lists ran 2x Sea Drake back in the day ? In that deck, Drake was often played as a finisher (for example, when you'd have sufficiently disrupted your opponent/ had enough back-up for Drake and the game-state was right, you'd cast Drake for the quasi-win).

That being said, I agree Sea Drake is kind of counter-tempoish in Team America. I've tested two copies (-1 Stifle, -1 Sinkhole , + 2 Drake) and for now I'm not impressed. (EDIT: And I don't think cutting one copy of Stifle and Sinkhole was a good idea to begin with).


@ATN: Don't play Spell Snare, it's pretty awful. Explosives too. It's too mana intensive and you'll lose quite a bit of tempo every time you use it to destroy something that isn't Counterbalance.

Again, thanks for the tip(s).

You are probably right, but I'll test it just to convince myself.

I agree that paying 3 to drop EE through Counterbalance (or sometimes 4 - in particular, against decks that can CB@3 like UGR-Threshold featuring Magus of the Moon or It's the Fear) slows you down.

The only other reason I wanted to add EE was to deal with certain aggro decks (a la WW or CounterSlivers). And there's the fact that I'm switching from Vorosh-Still to Team America, so I'm still a bit nervous about the small amount of removal in the deck.

socialite
10-22-2008, 03:59 PM
There is an obvious synergy between Stifle, Wasteland and Sinkhole, but that is not an argument for or against swapping Sinkhole with Hymn, since you only talk about one side of the argument (one other side would be the benefits of Hymn).

WHAT.

Such as, I mean serious dude, if you are going to say something like this at least validate your point. What -are- the benefits of Hymn over Sinkhole in this shell? I am curious as to your thoughts.


LOL, haha



To my knowledge, and also preferably by testing rather than mental masterbation... I lost countless matches vs my buddy because of the power of hymn de tourach and its ability to disrupt your hand. In the end, I would play hymn de tourach before sinkhole. The question is main hand disruption vs LD... If your lucky Hymn can do both.

WHAT.

Really? Im not even sure where to start with this. Your buddy or if you're lucky. Neither of which are really strong arguments for Hymn -TO- Tourach.

If you have some quality input Id suggest you post it. I am also curious to your thoughts as well as possible encounters for each card during your "testing". Why did you find Hymn to Tourach to be better?


I have found it to be much more productive to focus on land destruction then hand destruction in this deck. Without the ability to power out a Hymn via Dark Ritual its power decreases ten fold. On top of that I found that Hymn often hits cards that would otherwise be unplayable due to your initial LD components. What is the point of Hymn if they cannot play their spells to begin with not to mention the majority of the decks that either:

1. Want cards in the graveyard.

Or

2. Dump their hands on turn 1. (See lack of Dark Ritual and the inability of this deck to drop a Hymn on turn 1).

In my opinion blind hand destruction really has no place in this format. Yes Hymn is a good card, yes sometimes it can hit 2 lands and be stupid good, but its -random-.

Shtriga
10-22-2008, 04:28 PM
I am absolutely loving this deck. I had some tries of crossing Thresh with a black based deck like Eva green before, but with not much success.

I'm playing the original list with -4 sinkhole +4 hymn, personal preference. I really like Hymn and I feel that Sinkhole is a bad topdeck later on

Deep6er
10-22-2008, 04:40 PM
That's retarded. Hymn is just as situationally bad as Sinkhole. If it's a bad top deck, it's because one of two things happened.

1) Your opponent has no lands in play. Seems good already.

2) Your opponent has a ton of lands in play and you've lost (or are losing) already.

Similarly, there are two scenarios where Hymn is bad.

1) Your opponent has no cards in hand, which makes Hymn functionally worse.

2) Your opponent has a ton of cards in hand.

There are additional factors to remember with Hymn though.

If your opponent has no cards in hand, then Sinkhole is a better play because you help to shut down dangerous top decks.

If your opponent has a ton of cards in play, either you're losing, or he can't play spells. At which point Hymn is terrible because you're making them discard spells they can't cast.

Sinkhole is better because it fits better into the deck's game plan. Denial. By destroying lands, you maintain the strength of a good Land Disruption package that also makes Daze relevant throughout the entire game. It also lessens the ability of your opponent to respond to certain actions, or to make multiple plays in a turn. Hymn only does some of that. However, it's less powerful in this deck than in Eva Green because you don't have Hypnotic Specter to complement the discard strategy.

Think things through. It's important. It's not a question of personal preference. Never was. It's a case of the functionally superior card. In this case, it's Sinkhole. Stop thinking it's personal preference.

jericohs@cottage
10-22-2008, 04:46 PM
WHAT.
Really? Im not even sure where to start with this. Your buddy or if you're lucky. Neither of which are really strong arguments for Hymn -TO- Tourach.


Thanks for Hymn -to- Tourach. But if all is well, and you would brush up on your french you would realize that i'd still prefer to call it Hymn de Tourach.



I have found it to be much more productive to focus on land destruction then hand destruction in this deck. Without the ability to power out a Hymn via Dark Ritual its power decreases ten fold. On top of that I found that Hymn often hits cards that would otherwise be unplayable due to your initial LD components. What is the point of Hymn if they cannot play their spells to begin with not to mention the majority of the decks that either:


Correct. I agree 100%. That's why i was saying this version is a dilluted Eva Green. Then I asked why you would play this list over Eva. Then someone asked whether to replace hymn or sinkhole. To which i said, i'd rather play Hymn. Because without DR, your not going to cast turn one sink or hymn and both are pretty even in a vacumm i think. But I would honnestly lean towards Hymn. Because that random discard might actually get land in his hand and maybe remove some business spells. You gotta have a little hand disruption...It was all removed to fit all that blue.



In my opinion blind hand destruction really has no place in this format. Yes Hymn is a good card, yes sometimes it can hit 2 lands and be stupid good, but its -random-.

Again you make a somewhat of a valid point but I think that's what AtN asked you, what are the pro's and con's of both cards.

@Deep6er
"Sinkhole is better because it fits better into the deck's game plan. Denial. By destroying lands, you maintain the strength of a good Land Disruption package that also makes Daze relevant throughout the entire game. It also lessens the ability of your opponent to respond to certain actions, or to make multiple plays in a turn. Hymn only does some of that. However, it's less powerful in this deck than in Eva Green because you don't have Hypnotic Specter to complement the discard strategy."

I agree, but what is this new crossbreed thresh meet eva green want to be? Cause it could go both ways. You could add the discard elements or the LD elements. Or, try to fit the core of both. I think we could fit the core of both. Although, like we mentioned above, there will be no turn 1 plays.

Maybe - 4 Snuff Out and + 4 Hymn

then we have 8 hand disruption elements:

Thoughtseize
Hymn de Tourach

and 12 LD elements:

Stifle
Wasteland
Sinkhole

+ all the counters from thresh.

Merged triple post. Your multiple consecutive posts and inability to use correct capitalization are starting to become tiresome. Next time you'll be getting a warning.
-TOOL

nitewolf9
10-22-2008, 05:05 PM
I think snuff out is one of the last cards I'd cut from the deck. It's simply absurd. Free spells are amazing, and rolling without removal seems very dangerous. One of the most appealing things about Team America is playing with force of will, daze, and snuff out all in the same deck.

socialite
10-22-2008, 05:12 PM
Maybe - 4 Snuff Out and + 4 Hymn

then we have 8 hand disruption elements:

Thoughtseize
Hymn de Tourach

and 12 LD elements:

Stifle
Wasteland
Sinkhole

+ all the counters from thresh.


Ok, Ill roll with this. Alright so settling upon what you have said lets replace the free removal in the form of Snuff Out with Hymn de Tourach.

How then do you propose we deal with win conditions that do get through the screen of disruption this deck cranks out? You aren't always going to have games where you see or resolve every piece of disruption wether it be discard or land destruction in a given game.

jericohs@cottage
10-22-2008, 05:28 PM
Ok, Ill roll with this. Alright so settling upon what you have said lets replace the free removal in the form of Snuff Out with Hymn de Tourach.

How then do you propose we deal with win conditions that do get through the screen of disruption this deck cranks out? You aren't always going to have games where you see or resolve every piece of disruption wether it be discard or land destruction in a given game.

What kind of win conditions? Win conditions that snuff out takes care of? Why wouldn't a timely daze, counter or force of will stop the one or two creatures they might cast after you've decimated their hand/manabase or both? I'm not sure i understand your question.

Deep6er
10-22-2008, 05:33 PM
Removing Snuff Out is counterproductive. If you see a single Snuff Out, I want them to play Tarmogoyf. You know why? Because they spent that two mana for nothing. That's huge. Every single scenario where you can steal tempo from your opponent is great.

It's not about taking one deck's core and shoving it into another deck. It's about using strategies that those decks have done, and taking it in a different direction. This deck is the most tempo oriented deck I've seen in the entire format. Not even Eva Green comes close. Don't confuse them. Even though some cards look similar, the application of the strategies that this deck employs is different.

This deck is built around tempo. To a lesser extent, it includes the ideas about velocity as well. The idea that the more things you play, the more momentum you can build up (obvious paraphrase). Playing more things is generally a good call. That's why the free spells are so fantastic in this deck. It allows you to have the ability to play spells when you would not be able to do so otherwise.

The free spells that have been included are the best of the lot available to us. I would be strongly against taking out any of them.

@Jericohs@Cottage: This deck aims to be an extremely aggressive aggro control deck. It aims to use it's disruption proactively instead of the reactive and defensive nature that Threshold takes with it's counter magic. The point of the deck is to finish the game in six or seven turns, with your opponent having few lands in play, and all of his relevant spells that he cast that game either killed or countered. Very simple, straightforward. It's not really a "crossbreed" because those decks are designed to be good against different things. Eva Green's threat density and Threshold's counter magic are designed to work within that deck's core in order to defeat certain strategies.

Team America's concern is primarily with decks that try to "play fair". With the obvious exception of Ichorid, most decks in Legacy operate according to rules already laid down and ideas strictly adhered to. What you're trying to do with this deck is to disrupt every strategy that their decks are built upon, in order to throw off any ability to recover in a meaningful time frame and then kill them with some huge, under costed threat. Simple.

jericohs@cottage
10-22-2008, 05:44 PM
Wait are you telling me that its completely wrong to compare Thresh concepts and Eva Green concepts with the ones expressed in this so-called "extremely aggressive tempo aggro control deck" why don't you add combo in there while your at it...

Originally Posted by Deep6er I think you're a dick, and I will endeavor to let you know that I think you're a dick.

...listen for a second. People want to play Sinkhole and others want to play Hymn. We are not arguing with you. You are not a inovator of any kind and i don't claim to be either. If what simply works best for you is your free spells...Ok then. I'll playtest with and without snuff out. To me they just look out of place. Why would you ever let creatures hit the table with all that control?

Jak
10-22-2008, 05:51 PM
I think it is horrible to compare this deck to Thresh or Eva Green. It may be a combination of both, but adding 1+2=3. It is really hard to say that 1 is 3 now, correct? Please, stop thinking this deck is Eva Green Jericoh.

Sinkhole makes the land denial strategy much, much stronger, where Hymn compliments it. I think you could go either way, but Sinkhole goes along with the plan a lot better. Sinkhole is the better call, IMO.

Deep6er
10-22-2008, 05:53 PM
Congratulations, you pointed out my signature. The point of my signature is to let people know that I won't hold back when I'm discussing things. If I think you're a dick, I'll tell you. If I think you're a retarded asshat, you'll know. It's in my signature, because it's something that is associated with me. You know, almost like a signature. Do you think I'm calling you a dick? Because I'm not. I'm rather confused as to why you would even bring that up.

Also, what's with the "I'm not an innovator" claim? Do the decks I've built up to now not count? Solidarity, It's the Fear, and Team America all of a sudden don't count for decks? What about all the stuff I've won with these decks? Does that not count now too?

So, how about all the testing that Dan and I have done? What about the logical arguments I made? What about the points I made where I pointed out why I think Sinkhole is the better card?

Are you trying to say that the deck isn't an "extremely aggressive tempo based aggro control deck?" Because I'd like to know what you would classify it then. Because that's what it is. Do you not understand those concepts? A deck can have more than one role. Hybridized builds aren't uncommon. Threshold is an aggro control deck. Solidarity was a combo control deck. Affinity (in Standard) was an aggro combo deck. Dirty Kitty was an aggro combo deck as well.

It's not a question of people wanting to play a card. It's a question of which card is functionally superior. If somebody wanted to play Grizzly Bears instead of Tarmgoyf, you'd stop them, right? Because Grizzly Bears is functionally worse than Tarmogoyf. I'm completely serious, it's not a question of personal preference here. It's a question of the best choice for the deck. In this case, the answer is Sinkhole.

jericohs@cottage
10-22-2008, 06:03 PM
oh brother... i can't compare it to thresh nor eva green although half of both decks are re-hashed into this Team America list??? I like it, I never said i didn't.
You gave me clear signals not to play hymn over sinkhole, thx.

frogboy
10-22-2008, 06:18 PM
You are not a inovator of any kind and i don't claim to be either.

I disagree with Dave about a lot of things, but to say he's not innovative is just completely incorrect.

The reason Thoughtseize is insane is because it costs one and gets their best card or lets you get their two and then spend the next turn Sinkholing them and from there if you have basically anything they are way behind. Hymn doesn't actively do anything for your game plan unless you get lucky and get their lands or their relevant drops and lets them play a land and get to the point where they can begin executing their game plan. Sure you get up a card, but that's not worth letting them play their spells. Snuff Out is particularly nuts because if they get a guy into play in the middle of all this, you can kill it while going on about your business.

Plus, they like, actually tested and stuff.

LordEvilTeaCup
10-22-2008, 06:35 PM
Manaplasm would be an interesting idea and it would be awesome to Snuff Out Tarmgoyf and swing 7. Funny with Fow and Tombstalker as well. Probably danger of cool things though.

Guy I Don't Know
10-22-2008, 08:15 PM
the meta is a factor in whether or not sinkhole or hymn is better, and being as ignorant as to say that one is better than the other is absurd. It is part personal preface and part metagaming.

Deep6er
10-22-2008, 08:40 PM
the meta is a factor in whether or not sinkhole or hymn is better, and being as ignorant as to say that one is better than the other is absurd. It is part personal preface and part metagaming.

I would disagree there. There may be certain meta games where it seems one is better, but I would contend that Sinkhole is almost universally better.

1) A meta game full of Threshold seems like it would make Sinkhole bad, because Daze is amazing against Sinkhole.

There are other considerations at work here:

A) Daze is good against Sinkhole, but Daze is also strong against the deck entirely.

B) If they don't have Daze, because of their lower land count, you can screw them out of mana slightly better. It's a question of changing the priority of your counter magic. Stifle and Wasteland both do a decent job of cutting them low on mana, but the real problem is their low curve. However, with Sinkhole, you can capitalize on them stumbling on mana, and destroy ALL of their lands. With Hymn, that's not the case. If you read Hymn to Tourach very carefully, you'll see that it says that it's "random". It doesn't let you look at his hand and choose the two most devastating cards against them. It doesn't allow you to hit the other lands in his hand. It doesn't allow you to hit all of the creatures in his hand. It's random. I'd rather not lose a game because my Hymn didn't impact his hand in any meaningful way. Sinkhole allows you to pursue a particular strategy against them. Sometimes, you want to either draw out a Daze, or keep them off of a particular color. Even if they Daze, that's still tempo lost for them. Because they're using Daze defensively.

C) It prevents Mystic Enforcer from coming down with higher reliability.

D) For Threshold lists that run Top, it limits the plays their capable of doing, because Top ties up their mana. Additionally, if the Threshold builds running Top run into decks that have Hymn, they can keep the cards on top, where they are immune to your discard. With Sinkhole, you can cut off those potential plays.

2) A meta game full of Goyf Sligh seems like it would make Sinkhole bad.

Again, there are more things to consider here.

A) Even though the deck keeps the mana curve low, Goyf Sligh's burn can rarely deal with Tarmogoyf. By keeping the amount of mana low, you reduce the possibility of them being able to use two things; Fireblast, or double burn spell. Hymn can't prevent the top decked Fireblast, and it can only hit the double burn if they can't play both pieces of burn in the same turn.

B) Even if they don't play Fireblast, Sinkhole can prevent multiple plays in a turn, which Hymn will only have a theoretical impact upon later in the game. Because Hymn doesn't empty their hand immediately, they can still go land (number three), double threat. With Sinkhole, you can cut off the ability to play more threats in a turn.

I don't think either one is the nut high against this match up, but I do think Sinkhole is better in enough situations to warrant it's spot in the main deck. To assume that the choice is between personal preference is to confuse the deck's strategy. Sinkhole fits better into the deck's strategy than Hymn does. Simple as that. I tested Hymn to Tourach, and found that Sinkhole was better. Not "different but just as good". Better. That implies that personal preference was not a factor. One card is functionally superior to the other. In this case, Sinkhole is functionally superior to Hymn.

If you interpret "personal preference" to mean running worse cards, then I would look into your interpretations of common connotations before I would look into this. It is not absurd to come to these conclusions. It is absurd to assume that functionally superior choices take a back seat to personal preference.

Peter_Rotten
10-22-2008, 09:20 PM
Specifically for the Goyf Sligh match, I'll gladly play against Hymn all day long. If you give me mana to cast things - guess what - I'm casting things. Jet and Library will make sure I get decent cards too.

Also, when speaking of personal preference, I personally prefer to play the right cards. Hymn has sucked ass for years. I said it. It is truth. I'll say it again. Hymn has sucked ass for years.

(To be fair, I'm no fan of Stinkhole either, but it is CLEARLY superior to Hymn in this deck whose plan includes mana denial - not cross your fingers and hope to nab a land out of the opponent's hand).

frogboy
10-22-2008, 10:41 PM
the meta is a factor in whether or not sinkhole or hymn is better, and being as ignorant as to say that one is better than the other is absurd. It is part personal preface and part metagaming.

I swear to God, people have been justifying poor card choices based on 'metagame' or 'personal play style' or some other kind of garbage for like seven years. It's no longer allowed. Read my last post and then read David's. When your game plan involves 'apply constant pressure to their mana base while beating them up with gigantic monsters' the land destruction spell is in fact superior to the 'discard two' spell.

aTn
10-23-2008, 10:29 AM
Ok, I've tested more and agree that EE and Spell Snare are not very hot in this deck (basically for the same reasons Deep6er pointed out to me earlier):

EE is really too slow... I'd rather side-in K. Grip to get rid of CB and Edicts to get rid of extra creatures than slowing down the tempo to do these tasks with EE.

As for Spell Snare, I think reactive control has to be free in this deck. In my experience, it was often more relevant to do something on my turn (casting Sinkhole, Goyf, etc.) than keeping U open for Spell Snare (keeping U open for Stifle in the early game as mana denial or in the mid/late-game to Stifle an activation - for example of P. Deed - is a totally different story).


WHAT.
Such as, I mean serious dude, if you are going to say something like this at least validate your point.


I was simply trying to point out something trivial about your post: your argument considered only one side of the story.

As for the comparative study of Hymn vs. Sinkhole, I honestly can't answer that question because I don't have enough playtesting/tournament experience with the deck and don't have the arrogance to claim otherwise.

That being said, I'm starting to see that the deck's game plan is mana denial with complementary control elements (discard + counters) and not the other way around. I think my suggestion of swapping Hymn and Sinkhole was me trying to turn things around. (EDIT: Ok, my name is Stan The Obvious...).

Anyways, I'll continue my testing with the original decklist (and try - probably useless - changes later).

Sidenote for E.'s Familiar:

Sorry if I'm totally off on this, but here's my perception:

Some of your posts are bordeline pretentious and seem more to go along the lines of mental masturbation than actual (and relevant) playtesting conclusions or play situations. I don't want to attack you, I'd rather have a relevant discussion.

(EDIT: Sorry about that... guess it's that time of the month for me... what I meant to say can be summed up by a quote by Rodney Dangerfield: Mental masturbation, when done right, can be enjoyed by the person performing it and all who are present. When done wrong... well, someone could lose a ball).

With that in mind, I think I'll go playtest.

Happy Gilmore
10-23-2008, 11:16 AM
I swear to God, people have been justifying poor card choices based on 'metagame' or 'personal play style' or some other kind of garbage for like seven years. It's no longer allowed. Read my last post and then read David's. When your game plan involves 'apply constant pressure to their mana base while beating them up with gigantic monsters' the land destruction spell is in fact superior to the 'discard two' spell.

There are so many worse cards suggested in this thread already, why attack someone about discussing Hymn vs. Sinkhole, one of the first discussion topics in the thread and presented in the initial post? I've done some brief testing on MWS vs. some of the top decks and came to the same conclusion about Sinkhole being better, EXCEPT in matchups against Combo. 2 for 1s are never ever bad, that being said, in an open metagame I would still take sinkhole over hymn.

Muradin
10-23-2008, 07:38 PM
So concerning the sideboard of the deck I think that Diabolic Edict is definately not a good card to run.
(as it should probably be boarded against Dreadnought, Goyf, Terravore and other big creatures)
I'd rather have Threads of Disloyalty as it not only kills their goyf but even gives you another one to attack with next turn. Since this deck is not running counterbalance + Top in its maindeck the issue of Krosan Grip getting boarded against Threads is also really negligible. This also supports the tempo based playstyle of the deck very well. The only thing I am not sure about is whether Mind Harness or Threads is the superior card in this slot. Both have their obvious advantages and disadvantages.

Concerning the maindeck I really have to say that this deck is quite strong and plays outreally smoothly most of the time.

Deep6er
10-23-2008, 07:45 PM
So, let me get this straight. Instead of running removal that definitely kills a creature, you want to run something that might, kind of maybe, steal a creature.

Threads can only take Tarmogoyf. Can't take Terravore, and Krosan Grip is better against Dreadnought.

Mind Harness requires you to constantly pay mana to keep it, which effectively turns off additional plays in a turn.

While I agree that stealing creatures is good, the ways that we have access to right now are all pretty terrible.

Diabolic Edict also helps deal with Mongoose and Mystic Enforcer out of Threshold, and Tombstalker in the black aggro match ups. Neither of the cards you mentioned can do that.

Killing a creature is better with this deck because of the fact that once it's dead, it's not going to fuck with you. Just stealing it can open up possibilities of them answering the card used, thus getting their creature back.

Edict is better because it's cheap, and it answers creatures that are problematic (Enforcer if he resolves, but more immediately Tombstalker). Additionally, it's good against Factory because of it's instant speed. That means all of your removal is instant speed, which is the best kind of utility for your removal.

frogboy
10-23-2008, 07:47 PM
Edict is a little loose against Dreadnought, but you can probably wreck all their Mages and Mishra's if that is part of your plan. I'm really really excited about the idea of Threads on a Dreadnought, but there are so many things that can go wrong with that plan.

Deep6er
10-23-2008, 07:49 PM
Especially considering (seeing Rodney's sideboard and what he boarded in against Dan) bounce, it seems like it could be a beating at an extremely relevant time.

nitewolf9
10-23-2008, 08:17 PM
The only creature stealing spell I would want would be control magic, considering the card's power against threshold (steals enforcer and is 4cc for balance) and the fact that it can take pretty much anything. Four mana in this deck hurts though.

Edict was the best of the options available. Honestly, it was very, very solid. I almost wished I had run 4 instead and cut the grip count to 3.
Almost.

PS. They mostly come at night, mostly.

J.V.
10-23-2008, 08:27 PM
PS. They mostly come at night, mostly.

Step 1: Steal underpants.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Make profit.

On a more relevant note, Have you guys had any problems with the beating that is Magus of the Moon? In my testing TA has been outstanding, but the two match ups I was having real difficulty against we're Dragon Stompy and Moon Thresh, it made me kind of want to run a basic Island for BEB. Also I was testing Sinkhole vs. Hymn to Tourach and my testing suggests that Sinkhole is definitely the better call.

nitewolf9
10-23-2008, 08:32 PM
I don't think this deck can afford to run a basic island, while trying to reach double black so early. Yes, moon effects are beatings. I think "board in blasts and pray" might be the only solution there.

Honestly, like John (Zork) was saying, Dragon Stompy really isn't something that everyone is playing en masse, and the deck is extremely inconsistent. Even though everything they play has "bad for you" written in sharpie on it. Against Moon thresh, you will have time to get a blue source in play and leave it open for blast. Or to get threats down and disrupt them, or keep them from ever reaching 3 mana. It's rough, though.

Rood
10-23-2008, 08:33 PM
I think Magus doesn't see nearly as much play as it did in the past, but the options to it are very limited I think. Postboard Edict certainly is a good answer when floating the mana...and of course BEB. But if they actually catch you off guard without an answer for him then yeah it's basically game time.

KillemallCFH
10-23-2008, 08:44 PM
If Magus is heavily played, Slaughter Pact is probably the best board card that helps against him while not being dead in other matchups. Still, though, Moon is less common nowadays and barring a abnormal meta, Pact probably isn't needed.

raharu
10-23-2008, 09:05 PM
The only other reason I wanted to add EE was to deal with certain aggro decks (a la WW or CounterSlivers).

Well, free spells are the shit, and Massacre is free, but I really don't see it helping the Counterslivers MU. I'd suggest Engineered Plague, but that really doesn't but a dampener on Counterslivers either, at least in my experience. Errr... This is also a terrible idea, but maybe Ensnare (one of my pet cards, so yell at me if you wish, it's not like I haven't been yelled at about Ensnare before) could help. It's like a shitty Time Walk (yeah, I'm being honest, a shitty Time Walk, like most "Time Walks". Fuck that phrase with a shoe) against agro, makes EtW combo go :cry: (for a turn, i.e. it's just a stall), and forces through your Tarmogoyf/s and/or Tombstalker/s. It gets around Mystic Enforcer, in the least.



And there's the fact that I'm switching from Vorosh-Still to Team America, so I'm still a bit nervous about the small amount of removal in the deck.

Well, Sickening Shoal is an option, if you want it, but considering the black curve of the deck (Thoughtseize, Sinkhole, Snuff Out wtf pitching removal for removal, and Tombstalker who shouldn't be pitched), it's most likely a bad idea.



In case anyone outside of Deep6er and nitewolf9 haven't figured it out, THERE AREN'T ANY FUCK-AROUND SLOTS IN THE DECK. Seriously. Sinkhole wants to be LD, and there isn't anything better to take it's spot. Stifle wants to be Stifle. Wasteland wants to be Wasteland. Snuff Out wants to be Free Removal that isn't shit, i.e. Snuff Out. The lands can't be changed (and I say that as I look at the list and cringe at Bayou, a mandatory evil). It's a rather straight forward deck without any wiggle room. Maybe there will be a better LD spell printed in UBg sometime soon, but not likely. So, yeah.

Henrik
10-24-2008, 06:42 AM
Cool deck.
I would perhaps not use sinkholes in it, but would probably like to see spell snare, as it has proven really good in tempo threshold, which manages with only stifle and wasteland as LD.
I would also like to see pernicious deed in the deck somehow.

Skeggi
10-24-2008, 06:54 AM
Sorry for the intrusion after so many pages. I'm going to revive an old point here: 8 threats might be a little bit tight. There have been efforts to find threat 9 and 10, but no creature fits this deck as a low-cost big beatstick. Sea Drakes won't work in this deck because this deck plays without any accelerators.

Over time I have given threat 9 and 10 for this deck some thought. Phyrexian Negator (http://magiccards.info/jr/en/19.html) seems like a beatstick that might fill these slots. He used to be very popular in suicide decks, until Tarmogoyf was printed and Eva Green was born. But perhaps we can revive this sucker. This deck has enough control to make sure the Negator doesn't recieve too much damage, while beating your opponent's face for 5.

If you have an aggro meta, this might not be a good option, but if you don't, at least it's a good sideboard card against decks with fewer creatures. Just a thought :smile:

Ironstickman
10-24-2008, 08:39 AM
Hi,

I think it has been made quite clear why sinkhole is functionally superior to hymn in this deck.

However, I don't understand why spell snare has been disregarded so early. It's still played succesfully in tempo threshold builds (3-4 copies) as said. If played au lieu de sinkhole, your mana base would become a lot more stable and you'll be playing more blue cards (20 to 24 is quite noticeable for FoW). It is true that your mana dirsuption will be lessened to certain extent and that the deck becomes a bit metagame dependant. It is true aswell, that I don't encounter many decks where snare is not close to acceptable. Snare is also loyal to the deck's philosophy of tempo, in the sense that CMC answer < CMC threat.

If the creators can throw any more thoughts on why snare is dismissed I'd be grateful. It may be that sinkhole is strictly better despite its mana requirements (whick is my main concern)

By the way, I can't understand why there are such complaints as 'This is not original' 'playsets of good cards thrown together' and the like, specially when good result's back-up the deck. As far as I can see, no-one untill now has thrown all the good free-spells in a deck together (I might be wrong), and that's something to consider innovative.

Benie Bederios
10-24-2008, 09:13 AM
By the way, I can't understand why there are such complaints as 'This is not original' 'playsets of good cards thrown together' and the like, specially when good result's back-up the deck. As far as I can see, no-one untill now has thrown all the good free-spells in a deck together (I might be wrong), and that's something to consider innovative.

5-color Thresh and UBgw Landstill also just play the best cards of each color. About a deck with alot of free-spells there is still this (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7377).

BB

nitewolf9
10-24-2008, 11:52 AM
I played with spell snare in the sinkhole spot and I just wasn't impressed. One of the problems I had with the red thrash lists was the LD package being too light. Sinkhole makes it possible for you to maintain pressure on your opponent's mana throughout the game. Seriously, I've heard the phrase "you're a ***" so much while playing this deck, mainly due to sinkhole.

As far as the manabase being more stable because of snare, you still need to hit double black for tombstalker, so I'm not really sure how that changes things very much. I don't think I'd change the land configuration around just because sinkhole was cut. It does however let you keep mana open for stifle a little more effectively. Although with sinkhole in your deck that is less relevant, because stifles work past turn 2 or 3.


I'm going to revive an old point here: 8 threats might be a little bit tight.

Is this point being brought up because of testing results or because of how the list looks? I think running 8 threats and 8 cantrips to find them is fine.

Guy I Don't Know
10-24-2008, 12:11 PM
if you are going for the land disruption, how about encroach? it gets rid of lands preemptively and is cheap

aTn
10-24-2008, 12:22 PM
One of the problems I had with the red thrash lists was the LD package being too light. Sinkhole makes it possible for you to maintain pressure on your opponent's mana throughout the game
I was skeptical about this at first, but now having tested the deck more and actually playing a (29 player) tournament yesterday, I agree: Sinkhole is essential to the main plan of the deck.


I don't think I'd change the land configuration around just because sinkhole was cut.

Totally agree. The manabase is extremely stable. In the tournament, I played two matches against decks packing the Wasteland + Stifle mana denial plan and the deck recuperated very well. Props for building such a good manabase.

About the choice maindeck removal:

I'm not saying Snuff Out is bad, it's very good, but a recurring problem has made me question it's quality in certain match-ups.

To be more precise, in my testing (against Goblins, Countersliver and the like), I often found Snuff Out to be annoying (life loss) against fast aggro decks which have a lot more threats than Team America.

Here are some of my observations (which might not be representative of the mean behaviour of the deck).

1. Decks playing Vial often trump the mana denial plan (obv);

2. Since Team America is "threat and removal light", the loss of life from Thoughtseize + Snuff Out often means (against these decks) that you'll eventually have a good board position but at a bad time, e.g. you'll die to an unblocked attacker with Goyf + Stalker on your side.

I've been testing Ghastly demise in the Snuff Out slots and I like them. Of course there's the "you're playing Tombstalker so that's not too hot with demise" argument, but actually with all the mainphase action this deck has (and also the Fetches and Wastelands), it has never came up in all my testing.

@ Edict: I've never liked that card too much, but in this deck (SB) it fits and works really well.

Aside: Finished 8th... (with G. Demise in the Snuff Out slots).

@ E's Familiar: Here's a new sig for you: Grow up :wink:

nitewolf9
10-24-2008, 12:24 PM
Even if encroach could grab basics, it still seems horrible. It sucks as a topdeck and is conditional as hell. There is a reason they didn't reprint sinkhole after unlimited.

Frenkill
10-24-2008, 01:19 PM
I have one question to you, nitewolf.

Why is your Eva Green Sideboard so different from the Team America Sideboard.

Eva Green:

4 Leyline of the Void
4 Engineered Plague
4 Choke
3 Umezawa's Jitte

Team America:

4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Krosan Grip
3 Diabolic Edict

Ok, Choke and Jitte don't make much sense here. But why don't you run Crypt > Leyline? And why don't you run Engineered Plague in the Team America SB?

nitewolf9
10-24-2008, 01:33 PM
The thing is, with crypt in your deck, you don't have to mulligan good hands (with at least one cantrip) against ichorid. Plus, you don't have ritual to power out leyline if you topdeck it. We tested against ichorid and crypt was great in that matchup.

Obviously if you stick a turn 0 leyline it is much worse for ichorid, and aggro loam for that matter, but crypt buys you plenty of time to win against those decks anyway and it is far less conditional. With Eva Green you need leyline because you need to essentially mull for your hate against ichorid, and if you're going to do that you might as well play something that they MUST answer to even start playing magic.

As far as plague is concerned it is simply unnecessary. I'm beginning to think it is not even necessary in the Eva Green board. Goblins is not a bad matchup for Team America; you are slightly ahead, and blasts go a long way. Plus, I wouldn't run plague along with blasts (too narrow) and TA needs blasts against moon effects and sligh decks. Eva Green does not care nearly as much about moon effects.

Happy Gilmore
10-24-2008, 02:12 PM
I have one question to you, nitewolf.

Why is your Eva Green Sideboard so different from the Team America Sideboard.

Eva Green:

4 Leyline of the Void
4 Engineered Plague
4 Choke
3 Umezawa's Jitte

Team America:

4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Krosan Grip
3 Diabolic Edict

Ok, Choke and Jitte don't make much sense here. But why don't you run Crypt > Leyline? And why don't you run Engineered Plague in the Team America SB?

Blue decks can actually defend againt cards like Bounce and Needle using daze, FoW, and Thoughtseize. It becomes less necessary to mulligan into a bad hand just to find layline. Also Layline can allways be a consideration, so Ichorid would probably have to bring in layline hate regardless. This is great for the Team America player.

TheCramp
10-24-2008, 02:12 PM
I don't think it needs a basic island, but what about cutting a flooded strand for a swamp? that could help keeping presure on knowing you could snuff a mage even if you taped out for a goyf or stalker. I guess that does little against bloodmoon, but also helps with all the :b::b: against oposing LD. That has been my only thought having played not nearly enough matches to know for sure.

Happy Gilmore
10-24-2008, 02:14 PM
I don't think it needs a basic island, but what about cutting a flooded strand for a swamp? that could help keeping presure on knowing you could snuff a mage even if you taped out for a goyf or stalker. I guess that does little against bloodmoon, but also helps with all the :b::b: against oposing LD. That has been my only thought having played not nearly enough matches to know for sure.

That would bring the number of blue sources down to 14, Not good, not good at all.

jericohs@cottage
10-24-2008, 02:25 PM
The thing is, with crypt in your deck, you don't have to mulligan good hands (with at least one cantrip) against ichorid. Plus, you don't have ritual to power out leyline if you topdeck it. We tested against ichorid and crypt was great in that matchup.

Obviously if you stick a turn 0 leyline it is much worse for ichorid, and aggro loam for that matter, but crypt buys you plenty of time to win against those decks anyway and it is far less conditional. With Eva Green you need leyline because you need to essentially mull for your hate against ichorid, and if you're going to do that you might as well play something that they MUST answer to even start playing magic.

As far as plague is concerned it is simply unnecessary. I'm beginning to think it is not even necessary in the Eva Green board. Goblins is not a bad matchup for Team America; you are slightly ahead, and blasts go a long way. Plus, I wouldn't run plague along with blasts (too narrow) and TA needs blasts against moon effects and sligh decks. Eva Green does not care nearly as much about moon effects.

What about Planar Void?

Card type: Enchantment

Casting cost: B

Card text: Whenever a card is put into a graveyard, remove that card from the game.

Oracle text: Whenever another card is put into a graveyard from anywhere, remove that card from the game.

Flavor text: "Planeswalking isn't about walking. It's about falling and screaming." -Xantcha, Phyrexian outcast

Artist: Andrew Goldhawk

Rarity: Uncommon

lolosoon
10-24-2008, 02:41 PM
What about Planar Void?
Wow...

Please, look at the WinCons of the deck :
4x Tarmogoyf
4x Tombstalker

Planar void is a great card against Team America, not a one you should run in SB...

jericohs@cottage
10-24-2008, 02:42 PM
Wow...

Please, look at the WinCons of the deck :
4x Tarmogoyf
4x Tombstalker

Planar void is a great card against Team America, not a one you should run in SB...

Ah, just checking... ;-)

darkalucard
10-24-2008, 02:54 PM
After reading and understanding this deck more I have decided with myself that any changes to this deck would make it another deck.

What I mean by this is that the play style of the deck, it's goals etc. All the cards in it work for it's strategy and there is absolutely no room for any changes.

If you were to cut Sinkholes it defeats the purpose of 4x Stifle/Wasteland all a sudden allot of card choices change and the deck falls apart and becomes and plays like something else.

XSivPSI
10-24-2008, 02:56 PM
Cool deck.
I would perhaps not use sinkholes in it, but would probably like to see spell snare, as it has proven really good in tempo threshold, which manages with only stifle and wasteland as LD.
I would also like to see pernicious deed in the deck somehow.

Play a different deck then. :tongue:

darkalucard
10-24-2008, 04:00 PM
Exactly my point! :cool:

Frenkill
10-24-2008, 06:39 PM
The thing is, with crypt in your deck, you don't have to mulligan good hands (with at least one cantrip) against ichorid. Plus, you don't have ritual to power out leyline if you topdeck it. We tested against ichorid and crypt was great in that matchup.

Obviously if you stick a turn 0 leyline it is much worse for ichorid, and aggro loam for that matter, but crypt buys you plenty of time to win against those decks anyway and it is far less conditional. With Eva Green you need leyline because you need to essentially mull for your hate against ichorid, and if you're going to do that you might as well play something that they MUST answer to even start playing magic.


Yes, but Eva Green has nothing to answer Chain of Vapor targeting Leyline. Here you have Force of Will. With Leyline + FoW the Ichorid Player is about to lose.

Does one single Crypt realy get you the the time you need? I havn't tested that, but i think it doesn't.

Nihil Credo
10-24-2008, 08:13 PM
Eva Green has Dark Ritual, which, while it doesn't exactly answer Chain of Vapor, gives the Ichorid player only a turn to dredge before it gets replayed.

Deep6er
10-25-2008, 02:01 AM
@Ironstickman: Spell Snare was too ineffective and narrow. There are plenty of times where you need something that isn't so narrow, and Sinkhole is that card. While only slightly less narrow, the fact that it plays nicely with the general game plan in addition to usually having a target, it just works better with the deck.

I honestly don't see why people would even bring up the "un-originality" factor. Sure, it's no It's the Fear, but as it turns out, we're trying to win the games of Magic that we play. Doing so in an effective manner is what most of us are here trying to do. "Style points" and "moral victories" aren't what we're looking to achieve. If that were the case, then every single deck I would even construct would have four Gifts Ungiven and four Eternal Witnesses in them. Because I have an unnatural fondness for those cards. Turns out though, we're not here for that. So why don't we let the "originality" arguments just die?

@Guy I don't know: Did you actually suggest, in all seriousness, Encroach? Please for the love of all that is holy tell me you're joking. No lies, it sounds like you're trolling this thread. I'll tell you here and now, you don't need to do anything. This thread is the diagram shown in the dictionary to describe exactly what a "clusterfuck" is.

@ATN: I strongly disagree with your inclusion of Ghastly Demise over Snuff Out. Sure, it got you eighth at a tournament, but that's not indicative of anything. If it was, then I've broken the format entirely in half with Burgeoning. Seriously, Snuff Out is exponentially better for this deck because of the tempo. Plus, it dodges Counterbalance much more effectively, while allowing you to spend mana for other things. It's about as close to the definition of tempo (when you use it) as you can get.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Dark Alucard and Raharu. There are no slots that are malleable in this deck. There were two things that I was looking to do when I posted this list (over in the Fifth Anniversary Thread).

1) Let other people know about how awesome the deck is.

2) Encourage other people to play it.

Dan and I have been racking our brains for so long, and this is what we came up with. We've been through so many iterations and variations that we feel that the deck list, as it stands now, is extremely solid.

What I'm hoping to gain from the discussion would be situations that analyze sideboards and sideboarding strategies.

Should newer cards come out in future sets that help Team America, we will definitely revisit some of the more irritating (but necessary) slots in the deck, but for right now, I don't think there's much merit to discussing the main deck. The sideboard, possibly, but not the main.

@Frenkill: Crypts are stunningly powerful in that match because some of your disruption is still extremely relevant. They don't really have the opportunity to build up lands/cards quite like they do against other decks. Crypt is definitely extraordinarily solid against Ichorid in this deck.

Linus
10-25-2008, 06:01 AM
Hi,

In which meta would you play TeamAmerica ? Is it better than Threshold against other rogue Decks ?

Guy I Don't Know
10-25-2008, 10:21 AM
ToA is pretty good against the new ad nauseum deck running around. If you look at the source tourny, dreadstill did surprisingly well, partially i would suspect because of maindeck Fow and Stifle. This deck plays Fow and Stifle also and beats. So combo heavy i would say is the best metagame with lots of ichorid and AdNauseum.

Threshold varies a lot so I don't know what to tell you about threshold against other decks. Depends on what build of thresh and what rogue deck you are talking about.

Nelis
10-26-2008, 11:15 AM
I know it's a fast format, and 4 mana is probably too much so it's probably a stupid suggestion. But why not Yukora, the Prisoner or Plague Sliver as extra threat.

rsaunder
10-26-2008, 12:03 PM
I know it's a fast format, and 4 mana is probably too much so it's probably a stupid suggestion. But why not Yukora, the Prisoner or Plague Sliver as extra threat.

I said it before and I will say it again: If you need more creatures, your best bet is to run serrendeb efritti. 3 mana for a 3 power flyer that doesn't care about lightning bolt and pitches to FOW? It's not anywhere near as good as stalker or goyf but if you REALLY want more creatures I think it's your best bet.

I'm also a huge fan of needle in almost any SB like this, especially one that doesnt run plague. Obviously BEB is in there against goblins so you'd probably go -4 Sinkhole (perhaps, I've always found discard to be less useful than land D against gobbos s0 -4 thoughtseie?) +4 BEB. Needle strikes me as an excellent way to shut off vials or perhaps survival. Two cards that can really overtake a tempo deck if they sit out on the field for too long. I don't know if it's really necessary, but it seems like it ought to be a consideration.

And in my opinion, crypt>leyline right now. Mostly becaue you don't have to keep bad hands to have effective post-board graveyard hate. You can cantrip into them.

raharu
10-26-2008, 02:09 PM
I said it before and I will say it again: If you need more creatures, your best bet is to run serrendeb efritti. 3 mana for a 3 power flyer that doesn't care about lightning bolt and pitches to FOW? It's not anywhere near as good as stalker or goyf but if you REALLY want more creatures I think it's your best bet.

True, that or Moroii (ghetto Effreets [or however the fuck it's spelled]), but personally, I wonder where you're finding the slots for the creatures in the first place? Shaving a Sinkhole and a land/Daze/Ponder? Sounds like a bad plan :rolleyes:


I'm also a huge fan of needle in almost any SB like this, especially one that doesnt run plague. Obviously BEB is in there against goblins so you'd probably go -4 Sinkhole (perhaps, I've always found discard to be less useful than land D against gobbos s0 -4 thoughtseie?) +4 BEB. Needle strikes me as an excellent way to shut off vials or perhaps survival. Two cards that can really overtake a tempo deck if they sit out on the field for too long. I don't know if it's really necessary, but it seems like it ought to be a consideration.

I really like Pithing Needle in decks like this too. I'd think that -4 Sinkhole, +4 BEB, -X Thoughtseize, +X Pithing Needle would be pretty :laugh: , considering the plethora of targets that Needle actually has in this match. GOGO LIST FUNCTION!!!:


AEther Vial
Rashidan Port
Wasteland
Gempalm Incinerator
Fetchlands**
Seige-Gang Commander


**Leaving Stifles for Ringleaders, Seige-Bang Commanders, etc. Also note that their manabase looks a bit like this

From Tacosnape's most recent posted list:
4 Badlands
2 Mountain
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wasteland
4 Rishadan Port

Or this

23 Lands:
4 Mountain
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wasteland
4 Badlands
3 Taiga

i.e. they're pretty open to lolwhoops I just nerfed your manabase in game 2 if you have enough needles. Then again, you most likely want to turn off AEther Vial, safe-guard your manabase from Wastelands/Ports, etc, so it might not be plan A, but it's an option that's available. Please note that keeping Goblins off mana is actually pretty good, because Warchief, Matron, Ringleader, and SGC are all fairly mana intensive cards, are all very important cards, and Goblins really likes to make land drops so it can vomit it's hand onto the board (or play more than a spell a turn, for that matter).

rsaunder
10-26-2008, 02:36 PM
The first card you call with needle against goblins is Vial. No exceptions. It's the strongest card in the deck against aggro-control, save perhaps a lackey that you don't have an answer for.

Second I'd probably name port, unless wasteland seems like a big threat, followed by fetches.

Is needle really necessary though? I haven't played the matchup much, so if I'm advocating a failed idea I'd love to hear about it now.

raharu
10-26-2008, 03:42 PM
The first card you call with needle against goblins is Vial. No exceptions. It's the strongest card in the deck against aggro-control, save perhaps a lackey that you don't have an answer for.

Seconded.


Second I'd probably name port, unless wasteland seems like a big threat, followed by fetches.

Well, Port, yes if it was present, but from what I've heard the deck is pretty resilient against Wastelands, and letting Stifle + BEB + FoW + Daze get all kinds of friction on (i.e. Pithing Fetchlands instead of Stifling them, giving you 4x more relevant "removal/ counters" while maintaining ManaDisruption) sounds... sexy.


Is needle really necessary though? I haven't played the matchup much, so if I'm advocating a failed idea I'd love to hear about it now.

True. BEB + other stuff sounds like enough :rolleyes: Needles are good in other Matches, though, and are almost always tempo.

Guy I Don't Know
10-26-2008, 03:46 PM
Most lists of goblins play Tin-street hooligan which will kill your pithing Needles. Survival plays tinstreet too and also indrik stomphowler. Be ready to defend your needle if you are playing it.

raharu
10-26-2008, 03:55 PM
Most lists of goblins play Tin-street hooligan which will kill your pithing Needles. Survival plays tinstreet too and also indrik stomphowler. Be ready to defend your needle if you are playing it.
But with Needle, you can let Stifle be psuedo BEB, and even if it's not making Ringleaders worthless, it's still making that TSH that they Matron'd for worthless.

rsaunder
10-26-2008, 03:58 PM
But with Needle, you can let Stifle be psuedo BEB, and even if it's not making Ringleaders worthless, it's still making that TSH that they Matron'd for worthless.

Heck, even if they do kill it, it's gained you tempo and cost them resources. Just saying "they have a way to kill it" isn't enough of an arguement against a card. It might not be worthwhile for other reason, though. I'm sure there was a reason to not include it in the main list and I'm curious as to what that reason is.

raharu
10-26-2008, 04:27 PM
Heck, even if they do kill it, it's gained you tempo and cost them resources. Just saying "they have a way to kill it" isn't enough of an arguement against a card. It might not be worthwhile for other reason, though. I'm sure there was a reason to not include it in the main list and I'm curious as to what that reason is.
Space, most likely. That, and the fact that Sinkhole is only less-that-stellar at worst, because everybody plays lands (shit, Ichorid doesn't even play Magic and they run some lands), but Pithing Needle can be an entirely dead card because there are decks that entirely lack Activated Abilities (or relevant ones).

kikkofrio
10-27-2008, 08:49 AM
what about putrefy, trygon predator or divert in SB?

nitewolf9
10-27-2008, 11:38 AM
what about putrefy, trygon predator or divert in SB?

All of these were considered and putrefy actually was in the board for a bit. The card just costs too much mana and doesn't help against threshold nearly as much as edict.

I love trygon predator but the problem with him is that he has to swing to do anything, so your opponent's removal can act as a hard counter to your artifact/enchantment removal. Krosan grip is going to be better 90% of the time. Fitting both in the board would be ideal, but I'm not sure how that can be done. Space is really at a premium.

As for divert, it's a really cool card but I don't know what problems it would solve.

kabal
10-27-2008, 04:20 PM
I realize that the below list is not a 1-1 with "Team America" but it is an oblivious off-shot and there isn't a another thread to discuss it. Are there any good modifications from this build or do you feel many of them are meta game driven.

Better Than Threshold by Hugo López (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=20499)

Mainboard:
1 Sea Drake
3 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf

3 Spell Snare
3 Smother
4 Stifle
3 Thoughtseize
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm

2 Pernicious Deed
1 Engineered Explosives

1 Island
1 Swamp
4 Wasteland
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
3 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta

Sideboard:
1 Pernicious Deed
4 Extirpate
2 Hydroblast
2 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Krosan Grip
3 Mind Harness

nitewolf9
10-27-2008, 04:46 PM
That list makes my head hurt. I'm not sure why you would run only 3 tombstalkers, it just doesn't make sense. And running 3 thoughtseizes when you absolutely want to see them early seems poor. The choice of snare over sinkhole I can kind of understand, even though I'm pretty sure sinkhole is the better choice most of the time, but maindeck pernicious deed and ee seems to be giving all the tempo you've been earning right back to your opponent. Maybe in the board (although I've tried deed in the board and did not like it), but maindeck it seems questionable.

Also, snuff out >>>> smother.

darkalucard
10-27-2008, 07:46 PM
Why run 3 Tombstalkers over 4 Tombstalkers?

Because running 4 of a card makes you draw multiples and it is hard to have that many cards in your graveyard to be able to cast one after another. Also maybe he doesn't want to lose to double extirpate?

Why 3 Thoughtseize over 4 Thoughtseize?

Because as playing a card to the 4 copy max increases you drawing them early at the same time it increases you drawing them late when they are completely dead cards.

URABAHN
10-27-2008, 08:14 PM
Why run 3 Tombstalkers over 4 Tombstalkers?

Because running 4 of a card makes you draw multiples and it is hard to have that many cards in your graveyard to be able to cast one after another. Also maybe he doesn't want to lose to double extirpate?

Why 3 Thoughtseize over 4 Thoughtseize?

Because as playing a card to the 4 copy max increases you drawing them early at the same time it increases you drawing them late when they are completely dead cards.

I suppose we should all follow this advice and play 3 copies of every good card you want to see as early as possible. The usual suspects IMO would be Force of Will, Tarmogoyf, Swords to Plowshares, Tropical Island, Brainstorm, and Wasteland. That would certainly make deckbuilding interesting.

rsaunder
10-27-2008, 08:53 PM
Why run 3 Tombstalkers over 4 Tombstalkers?

Because running 4 of a card makes you draw multiples and it is hard to have that many cards in your graveyard to be able to cast one after another. Also maybe he doesn't want to lose to double extirpate?

Why 3 Thoughtseize over 4 Thoughtseize?

Because as playing a card to the 4 copy max increases you drawing them early at the same time it increases you drawing them late when they are completely dead cards.

Are you being completely serious right now?

Guy I Don't Know
10-27-2008, 10:29 PM
the problem with the above list is that it is playing cards that bring the game to the end game [deed, EE, Spell Snare(arguably)] and cards that are only good in the early game[thoughtseize, stifle(arguably)] Focusing on one or the other would most likely make a stronger deck. Otherwise in the late game you will draw useless cards or in the early game you will draw cards that do not further your goals.

Guy I Don't Know
10-27-2008, 10:38 PM
I think smallpox could go into the sideboard of this deck over diabolic edict, Smallpox is very good against goblins. Yes, I know if you have a dude it is the worst, but on turn two facing down a lackey i can think of no better card.

socialite
10-27-2008, 11:42 PM
I think smallpox could go into the sideboard of this deck over diabolic edict, Smallpox is very good against goblins. Yes, I know if you have a dude it is the worst, but on turn two facing down a lackey i can think of no better card.

Snuff Out answers turn 1 Goblin Lacky so does Force of Will. Diabolic Edict is infinitely better than Small Pox. I really FAIL to understand why people keep suggesting that Small Pox be crammed into this deck. Small Pox =/= Tempo.

Really I thought this thread was EPIC FAIL before, now it really has just gone down the tube. Yes this post is condescending, but really the past three pages have the consistency of warm oatmeal and baby food. Just stop.

darkalucard
10-27-2008, 11:46 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by darkalucard
Why run 3 Tombstalkers over 4 Tombstalkers?

Because running 4 of a card makes you draw multiples and it is hard to have that many cards in your graveyard to be able to cast one after another. Also maybe he doesn't want to lose to double extirpate?

Why 3 Thoughtseize over 4 Thoughtseize?

Because as playing a card to the 4 copy max increases you drawing them early at the same time it increases you drawing them late when they are completely dead cards.

I suppose we should all follow this advice and play 3 copies of every good card you want to see as early as possible. The usual suspects IMO would be Force of Will, Tarmogoyf, Swords to Plowshares, Tropical Island, Brainstorm, and Wasteland. That would certainly make deckbuilding interesting.

@URABAHN
WTF Are you talking about!

So your saying Force of Will, Tarmogoyf, Swords to Plowshares, and Brainstorm are dead cards late game? WOW

When your losing to a Creature and you top deck a Thoughtseize it doesn't help you at all. Force of Will isn't bad late game because you can counter your opponents top-decks. Of course Goyf, STP, and Brainstorm are good top decks... and as for the land... That's a completely different story. They are not even spells that has to do with developing a mana-base which I was not talking about. Also I don't understand why you would need 4 Tropical Islands....

All I'm saying is Thoughtseize is a bad top-deck late game.

rsaunder
10-28-2008, 12:27 AM
He was kidding.

The thing about thoughtseize and tombstalker (since apperantly an explanation is in order) are that they are so game-changingly good against every deck in the format that they should be 4-ofs, even if they're sub-par in certain circumstances.

If you pull 2 tombstalker in a game, chances are you won't be casting both of them for BB. By the time the second one gets into play you ought to have plenty of either mana or more cards in the graveyard. I have never once had a problem dropping two or even 3 tombstalkers in a game whilst strategically leaving some cards in the yard to feed goyf.

As for thoughtseize, they are a bad topdeck when you need removal/a creature. Yes. But so is daze, and arguably in many circumstances force of will. Thoughtseize is amazing early game, and this is undeniable. It's so good that it's worth the late game tradeoff because it so effectively helps you MAKE IT to the late game and strengthens your position therin.

darkalucard
10-28-2008, 01:53 AM
Out of allot of decks that run Tombstalker this one seems to have allot of cards that can get into the grave early.

At least in this deck I agree that your right.

But in other decks I can totally see Daze, Tombstalker and other cards being played as a 3-of.

Swing4Five
10-28-2008, 02:33 PM
Finally got through reading this thread.

As everything I was going to respond to has already been responded to (and probably more eloquently than I would have), I'm just going to say 'grats on the finish and thanks for sharing this list with the community.

I knew there was a reason I've been wanting to pick up a playset of Tombstalkers.

alcaeus
10-28-2008, 03:25 PM
Very nice deck guys!

Considering that you are running sinkhole instead of hymn, I'm really missing Extirpate in the deck. It radically boosts your manadisruption gameplan, particularly in conjunction with wasteland.

I would suggest cutting one daze for a mainboard extirpate, and finding room for 2-3 more in the SB. (-1KrGr -1ToCr)

Furthermore, a singleton dreadnought can't be too bad a strategy, although the 4 stifles are quite essential in their own right, given the lack of basics.

Not much room for improvement I'd say, I'm looking forward to see more results. Good job!

socialite
10-28-2008, 09:24 PM
Considering that you are running sinkhole instead of hymn, I'm really missing Extirpate in the deck. It radically boosts your manadisruption gameplan, particularly in conjunction with wasteland.

David is going to rape you. No joke, angry rape. Extirpate is bad for various reasons that have been discussed and regurgitated all over this forum. I suggest you go take a look.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11349

EDIT: SIGH. HOPELESS.

darkalucard
10-28-2008, 10:01 PM
WRONG extirpate is bad in 95% of decks.

IT does fit in some decks and David G isnt alway right. :tongue:

Maybe he's right like 95% of the time or something idk. 5% Wrong. :tongue:

dude 666
10-28-2008, 10:12 PM
Why does it fit into black tempo threshold but not team america?

Tosh
10-28-2008, 11:03 PM
David is going to rape you. No joke, angry rape. Extirpate is bad for various reasons that have been discussed and regurgitated all over this forum. I suggest you go take a look.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11349

EDIT: SIGH. HOPELESS.

Did you not check out the results of the poll you linked to? In no way does the poll PROVE that Extirpate is good in some decks, but it does prove that most people believe that it's good in some decks (it should not come as a surprise when someone likes Extirpate).

From what I could tell, no definitive conclusion was reached in that thread. You can read it to hear out other peoples' arguments, but there's no answer located in that thread.

Just because David G. doesn't like Extirpate does not mean that it's bad. Saying David doesn't like the card is evidence of nothing, you can listen to the reasons why he thinks that it's bad, but "because I[/David] said so" is not compelling. It is up to you to decide whether Extirpate is good in this deck or not.

Illissius
10-28-2008, 11:09 PM
I'm someone who thinks Extirpate is worthwhile in some decks. Team America is not one of those decks. This is not a deck that wins the game through attrition and long term resource advantage. This deck wins the game on tempo, ASAP, with overwhelming force. Tormod's Crypt has a hell of a lot more short term impact than does Extirpate, and for less mana.

EDIT -- On the subject of "free spells are pretty good"... it's been a while since I've seen Submerge used anywhere.

socialite
10-28-2008, 11:10 PM
Did you not check out the results of the poll you linked to? In no way does the poll PROVE that Extirpate is good in some decks, but it does prove that most people believe that it's good in some decks.

Just because David G. doesn't like Extirpate does not mean that it's bad. Saying David doesn't like the card is evidence of nothing, you can listen to the reasons why he thinks that it's bad, but "because I[/David] said so" is not compelling. It is up to you to decide whether Extirpate is good in this deck or not.

What already consistent card in the shell of this deck do you suppose we replace with Extirpate? This is directed to everyone.

Do people honestly believe removing another players lands from their deck to be an efficient path to victory?

I wish I could get my opponents to spend mana on thinning my deck out for me.

Yeah Extirpate coupled with land destruction could be a brutal tactic! Congratulations you just spent mana and a card to remove 0-3 other cards from an opponents deck that:
1. He/she shouldn't be able to resolve to begin with versus this deck.
and/or
2. He/she most likely wouldn't have even seen during the match.

Deep6er
10-29-2008, 02:37 AM
Very nice deck guys!

Considering that you are running sinkhole instead of hymn, I'm really missing Extirpate in the deck. It radically boosts your manadisruption gameplan, particularly in conjunction with wasteland.

I would suggest cutting one daze for a mainboard extirpate, and finding room for 2-3 more in the SB. (-1KrGr -1ToCr)

Furthermore, a singleton dreadnought can't be too bad a strategy, although the 4 stifles are quite essential in their own right, given the lack of basics.

Not much room for improvement I'd say, I'm looking forward to see more results. Good job!

I swear that if this is some kind of joke account used solely for the purpose of pissing me the hell off, you've succeeded. Congratulations. You win. Please take the retardation elsewhere.

If you're actually serious, then you have problems outside of just thinking that Extirpate belongs in this deck. For reasons that are wrong, you believe Extirpate to be a good card. That is a fallacy. Extirpate is fucking terrible. Every time somebody says something along the lines of, "Extirpate is almost good, or better", I legitimately think they are worse at Magic than I used to. For some, that's impressive, for others I'm stunned that they could go even lower on the scale.

If you read that thread, you can see me detailing exactly why I think Extirpate is poor. If you read that thread, you see that most people defending the card (for whatever incorrect reasoning they have) argue that the card is justifiable for long term resource denial. Now, even though that's an awful way to look at it, assuming you use that theory for the card, it's position in the deck is utterly beyond anything that the deck is hoping to accomplish.

To suggest something like that implies two things.

1) It implies that you're playing the deck incorrectly. I'd recommend looking into how you've been playing the deck. If you're playing for the slow grind, where you go for the late game after attempting to destroy all of their lands/creatures, then you're playing the deck wrong.

2) It also implies that, for whatever reason, you believe Extirpate to be good. That's also wrong. The card is excellent at deceiving people into thinking that the card is good. No matter how many times people lose with that card (and truly, because of that card), they refuse to analyze it's weaknesses. Dan and I found that the only logical analogy is an abusive spouse*. I'd recommend looking into dropping that like a bad habit.

Seriously, beyond the fact that Extirpate is fucking terrible (which it is), I'm curious as to why you think that throwing a card away for the (theoretical) possibility of screwing them out of a color is worth it. If they have a second Tropical Island in play, then your plan to screw them out of a color is fucked. You have to wait for yet another Wasteland/Sinkhole to deal with it. Your magical, two card combo that might beat them (as long as they don't draw another Tropical Island), is awful. You have to be able to play and draw good cards to make your bad card not awful. Why not just play more good cards?

This isn't a personal attack, this is me trying to convince you why you're wrong. Sure, scathing personal commentary is probably one of the worst ways to convince a particular person, but hey, other people will read this too. Maybe I can convince them if you decide to continue playing with terrible cards.

For example, read the following:

@Illissius: I think you're a pretty cool guy, but for liking Extirpate, I legitimately think you're worse at Magic then I originally gave you credit for. This is in no way a personal attack, more a declaration of my thoughts and ideas as they pertain to you.

See? Doesn't matter that he's an Adept. Hell, I'll say the exact same thing to Nihil Credo or any of the Administrators (if they happen to hold that flawed belief).

@Dark Alucard: Funny story, Extirpate is bad in 100% of decks. True story too.

@Dude 666: Two things here:

1) Team America is a better version of Tempo Threshold.

2) Extirpate sucks in that deck too.

@Tosh: Sure, all I'm stating are my opinions on the card. However, it turns out that I've had opinions that have turned out pretty well in the past. Solidarity was an opinion once. It's the Fear too. Team America was an opinion that Dan shared. Seems to me that my track record for things that I'm extremely vocal about is pretty solid. It may be that my fondness for testing, and my months and months of playing the card may have given me an insight into how terrible the card is. On the other hand, you seem convinced that I'm talking out my ass. I'll tell you that you're wrong, but hey, since there's no way to forcibly sit you in a chair and go back in time with me so that I can prove it to you, I guess we're going to have to leave that be.

Even though everyone down here can attest to the fact that I played the card for quite a while (in the main deck at times!), I'm still like eighty per cent certain that you would refuse to believe that I know what I'm talking about.

What's better is that "talking" with you over the internet has given me an idea about you. When I see you post, I get the mental image of the guy who proves how "awesome" a card is because he totally just won this one game because of that card. Completely neglecting how many times he lost because of it, he blinds himself to the negatives, and only examines the card in the best possible light.

Again, not a personal attack, but a glimpse of my ideas as they pertain to you. Perhaps this will help further communications between us knowing how we stand to each other. It's not like anything can hurt at this point.

@Illissius: We tested Submerge in the sideboard, and it just wasn't good enough. Edict was better because of the fact that it didn't target. In testing, Mystic Enforcer and Tombstalker were beatings, with Nimble Mongoose proving irritating once out of every three or four games.

Submerge was abandoned because of it's limited scope (and honestly, the question really is Diabolic Edict versus Submerge), and Diabolic Edict's more "permanent" answer was deemed more effective. Sure the tempo was pretty insane (when it happened), but this was one case where the benefits of the small tempo boost in very specific match ups wasn't warranted.

@Ertai's Familiar: You need to go to a tournament that I'm going to. That way I can give you a high five.

*LOLZ, I made a funny about domestic abuse, I guess I'm a terrible person.

herbig
10-29-2008, 05:02 AM
Your arguments for the terribleness of Extirpate are equally compelling for the uselessness of prayer and the absence of a god. Are you, David Gearhart, in fact an atheist?

But in all honesty, would anyone here ever play this card:


Awesome!
B
Instant
Split Second

Because I know I wouldn't.

Especially not in a tempo deck like this.

Baumeister
10-29-2008, 11:23 AM
Your arguments for the terribleness of Extirpate are equally compelling for the uselessness of prayer and the absence of a god. Are you, David Gearhart, in fact an atheist?

Reading that post reminded me of reading The Brothers Karamazov all over again. Maybe he's the reincarnation of Dostoevsky.

Playing Extirpate in this deck is like making a delicious smoothie of tempo-y goodness and then taking a shit in it. End of story.

nitewolf9
10-29-2008, 11:50 AM
Well then. I guess my "I don't really think extirpate is a good idea" comment that I was about to make just got overshadowed a bit.

That card used to be ok in standard control mirrors. It's not good in legacy. It sucks as yard hate and for every time you "OMG RAPE" someone with it, there will be 9 or 10 other times that you draw it and wish it was anything else.

socialite
10-29-2008, 07:54 PM
You will be happy to know that this deck took first in a 41 person event in Spain.

Liga Valenciana de Legacy, Spain
2008/10/26, 41 players

1 Team America
2 ANT
3 Belcher
4 Burn
5 Mono-R Goblins
6 Ugr Dreadstill
7 Ichorid
8 Ichorid

kabal
10-29-2008, 08:00 PM
You will be happy to know that this deck took first in a 41 person event in Spain.

Liga Valenciana de Legacy, Spain
2008/10/26, 41 players

1 Team America
2 ANT
3 Belcher
4 Burn
5 Mono-R Goblins
6 Ugr Dreadstill
7 Ichorid
8 Ichorid

Sort of ...

Better Than Threshold by Hugo López (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=20499)

Mainboard:
1 Sea Drake
3 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf

3 Spell Snare
3 Smother
4 Stifle
3 Thoughtseize
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm

2 Pernicious Deed
1 Engineered Explosives

1 Island
1 Swamp
4 Wasteland
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
3 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta

Sideboard:
1 Pernicious Deed
4 Extirpate
2 Hydroblast
2 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Krosan Grip
3 Mind Harness

klaus
10-29-2008, 08:21 PM
1 Sea Drake
3 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Spell Snare
3 Smother
4 Stifle
3 Thoughtseize
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm
2 Pernicious Deed
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Island
1 Swamp
4 Wasteland
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
3 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta

Sideboard:
1 Pernicious Deed
4 Extirpate OMGomgOMG
2 Hydroblast
2 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Krosan Grip
3 Mind Harness

This ain't Team and this ain't America. So forget aboudid!

socialite
10-29-2008, 08:53 PM
Sort of ...

Better Than Threshold by Hugo López (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=20499)

Mainboard:
1 Sea Drake
3 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf

3 Spell Snare
3 Smother
4 Stifle
3 Thoughtseize
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm

2 Pernicious Deed
1 Engineered Explosives

1 Island
1 Swamp
4 Wasteland
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
3 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta

Sideboard:
1 Pernicious Deed
4 Extirpate
2 Hydroblast
2 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Krosan Grip
3 Mind Harness

Ouch. Then again it is Spain. They still play Vintage Turbo-Land.

dude 666
10-29-2008, 09:50 PM
@Dude 666: Two things here:

1) Team America is a better version of Tempo Threshold.

2) Extirpate sucks in that deck too.



This isn't answering the question. Did I ask you which deck is better? No. [Verbal warning for flaming. - Bardo]

So again, why is exirpate justifiable in tempo black threshold and not in team america. And when you say it's bad there, I think I'll take Adan's word over yours.

Obfuscate Freely
10-29-2008, 10:14 PM
So again, why is exirpate justifiable in tempo black threshold and not in team america. And when you say it's bad there, I think I'll take Adan's word over yours.
Begging the question (logical fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

This deck is "tempo black Threshold," and Dave tried his best to explain why Extirpate makes even less sense here than it does elsewhere:

[Snip - Bardo]

dude 666
10-29-2008, 10:51 PM
Begging the question (logical fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

This deck is "tempo black Threshold," and Dave tried his best to explain why Extirpate makes even less sense here than it does elsewhere:

The deck I'm referring to is UGb Thresh with spell snares, stifle, wastelands, dark confidants, mongeese, etc. The deck also plays a few mainboard copies of extirpate; all I'm asking is why it's good in that deck but not in team america. Really, quite a simple question. You don't have to post wiki links for me and be a jackass, you can just answer it.

Snip. Follow your own advice. - Bardo

socialite
10-29-2008, 11:02 PM
The deck I'm referring to is UGb Thresh with spell snares, stifle, wastelands, dark confidants, mongeese, etc. The deck also plays a few mainboard copies of extirpate; all I'm asking is why it's good in that deck but not in team america.


If you read that thread, you see that most people defending the card (for whatever incorrect reasoning they have) argue that the card is justifiable for long term resource denial. Now, even though that's an awful way to look at it, assuming you use that theory for the card, it's position in the deck is utterly beyond anything that the deck is hoping to accomplish.

Extirpate =/= Tempo. Clear? Go play test it, its crap.

Ill also ask yet again, what already solid card in the shell would you replace with Extirpate? Even if Extirpate was a good card when you compare it to the package of disruptive cards already in the deck it pales in comparison. Its a simple matter of choosing a more powerful card and Extirpate is not that card.

Extirpate over:
Stifle
Force of Will
Daze
Thoughtseize
Snuff Out
Sinkhole

No thanks.

Obfuscate Freely
10-29-2008, 11:25 PM
The deck I'm referring to is UGb Thresh with spell snares, stifle, wastelands, dark confidants, mongeese, etc. The deck also plays a few mainboard copies of extirpate; all I'm asking is why it's good in that deck but not in team america. Really, quite a simple question. You don't have to post wiki links for me and be a jackass, you can just answer it.
Your question is a textbook example of begging the question, which means it is not productive to answer. To spell it out for you, you are implicitly making the following logical argument:

1. Extirpate is good in Tempo Threshold.
2. Team America is very similar to Tempo Threshold. Therefore,
3. Extirpate is good in Team America.

The problem is with the first premise, which is not universally held as true, and which David Gearhart certainly believes to be false. The second premise is true; Team America is indeed extremely similar to Tempo Threshold. So, it would follow that Extirpate is equally "good" or "bad" in both decks, but David obviously believes it to be bad in Team America. So, how should he answer your question? He can try to correct your mistake, and challenge the first premise, but discussing other Tempo Threshold lists is beyond the scope of this thread, and you have already stated that you won't listen to his thoughts on the topic, anyway.

It isn't as if David Gearhart hasn't expounded on the problems with Extirpate, many times before. I can summarize them for you, though.

1. Pairing the card with land destruction is highly conditional.
2. Using it as long-term resource denial is completely antithetical to the aggressive strategy of Team America.

dude 666
10-30-2008, 12:05 AM
Your question is a textbook example of begging the question, which means it is not productive to answer. To spell it out for you, you are implicitly making the following logical argument:

1. Extirpate is good in Tempo Threshold.
2. Team America is very similar to Tempo Threshold. Therefore,
3. Extirpate is good in Team America.

The problem is with the first premise, which is not universally held as true, and which David Gearhart certainly believes to be false. The second premise is true; Team America is indeed extremely similar to Tempo Threshold. So, it would follow that Extirpate is equally "good" or "bad" in both decks, but David obviously believes it to be bad in Team America. So, how should he answer your question? He can try to correct your mistake, and challenge the first premise, but discussing other Tempo Threshold lists is beyond the scope of this thread, and you have already stated that you won't listen to his thoughts on the topic, anyway.

It isn't as if David Gearhart hasn't expounded on the problems with Extirpate, many times before. I can summarize them for you, though.

1. Pairing the card with land destruction is highly conditional.
2. Using it as long-term resource denial is completely antithetical to the aggressive strategy of Team America.

Nonono. I'm not saying premise 2 at all. You assumed my question was illegitimate, but I'm not assuming premise 2. I want to know why extirpate is viable in the one deck, but not in the other. Namely, the differences which allow it to be viable. Honestly, I don't know why extirpate is played in UGb thresh, but it's certainly played for a reason. Why can't that reasoning be applied to team america? (again, I'm not beggin or anything, I just wanna know why)

Deep6er
10-30-2008, 12:14 AM
Thanks Alix. That's pretty cool of you actually. I'll totally give you a high five the next time I see you.

Anyway, here goes with some of the responding.

@Dark Alucard: Very clever. Obviously none of my arguments count, so I must be stupid. Seems to me that I could retaliate here, but that's not going to accomplish anything. So I tell you what, why don't we leave it be? You don't like me, I don't like you, but I'm pretty sure that outside of the humor value associated with ridiculous shit like this, people don't actually want to read about it.

@Dude 666: See, here's the thing about Tempo Threshold. Dark Confidant is not tempo. Mongoose is nowhere near as threatening as Tombstalker and Tarmogoyf are. Extirpate is not tempo and awful simultaneously. The decks are different, because that deck uses cards that are clearly not tempo oriented, and refuses to use some of the strongest tempo cards available (namely Snuff Out). People assume that Dark Confidant is tempo, or belongs in tempo oriented decks. That is wrong. The card is a poor choice for a tempo deck for two reasons.

1) As a creature, it will have no impact the turn it comes into play, thus making a time walk for the opponent (a turn where you did nothing threatening is a turn where they can stabilize). All creatures have this problem, but for Tarmogoyf and Tombstalker, it's different. Because those creatures are very large, you can justify their turn investment by the amount of damage that they're capable of dealing to your opponent. Because they kill the opponent extraordinarily quickly, they are a valuable resource.

2) Dark Confidant necessitates some kind of filtering ability. I've played decks that had Dark Confidant and Tombstalker in them. Doming yourself for eight is not a good route to victory. Additionally, while Dark Confidant's drawing ability is solid, it's not reliable. Because there's removal in just about any deck he's likely to die. However, where certain removal can rarely deal with Tarmogoyf, just about every piece of commonly played removal can deal with Dark Confidant because he's so fragile. One for one-ing with a Lightning Bolt is an awful strategy, because Tarmogoyf rarely has that problem, and Tombstalker never has that problem. The immunity to damage based removal is a huge boon in those match ups. The fact that Dark Confidant necessitates some kind of filtering effect is just the last nail in the coffin.

nitewolf9
10-30-2008, 12:20 AM
Honestly, I don't know why extirpate is played in UGb thresh, but it's certainly played for a reason.

Well, as you can see, nobody that had a hand in developing Team America agrees with extirpate being useful, so you might need to get your answers somewhere else. Honestly though, use your own judgment...if you can't think of a reason that someone would include extirpate in a deck like this, I'd say that's a pretty big red flag.

PS. Extirpate sucks ass.

PPS. Seriously, it does.

frogboy
10-30-2008, 01:13 AM
I want to know why extirpate is viable in the one deck, but not in the other.

It's not viable in either deck.

jericohs@cottage
10-30-2008, 01:55 PM
Extirpate does not move this decks gameplan in any direction but backwards. It does not fit in this shell. That is all.

aTn
10-30-2008, 02:30 PM
What's your SB plan for Dragon Stompy ?

In the few tests I did, I went:

-4 Stifle
-4 Toughtseize

+4 BEB
+4 Grip

I'm not an expert of the match-up, so by no means do I claim this is the best SB plan ever (in particular, my SB plan doesn't even change wether I'm on the play or on the draw).

In my experience (which may not yet be representative of the match-up in general), on the draw, I've found the mana-denial plan to be average, i.e. I've often found myself backpedalling to counter/get rid of their threats/nuisances rather than enforcing that gameplan. In that case, maybe siding-out Sinkhole instead of Thoughtseize is an option.

I don't side-in the Edicts because I think 4 BEB + 4 Snuff Out is enough to deal with their creatures (the rest is dealth with, ideally, with Krosan Grip) - again, I may be wrong.

P.S.: Those of you who want to test Extirpate, do it - no one here seems to be preventing you from doing so. Why waste time (and forum space) having a discussion that's leading you nowhere when you can do your own thinking/testing and make your own conclusions ?

P.P.S.: Personally, I don't really see why I'd want to play Extirpate over all the maindeck choices we have.

Elf_Ascetic
10-30-2008, 02:44 PM
True. Extirpates role in tempothresh is to win the mid/lategame. This deck has Tombstalker to do that. Pate is NOT, and I repeat NOT needed!

Lets go on with a discussion about the rest of the cards.

THANK YOU! - Bardo

jericohs@cottage
10-30-2008, 04:59 PM
What's your SB plan for Dragon Stompy ?

In the few tests I did, I went:

-4 Stifle
-4 Toughtseize

+4 BEB
+4 Grip

I'm not an expert of the match-up, so by no means do I claim this is the best SB plan ever (in particular, my SB plan doesn't even change wether I'm on the play or on the draw).

In my experience (which may not yet be representative of the match-up in general), on the draw, I've found the mana-denial plan to be average, i.e. I've often found myself backpedalling to counter/get rid of their threats/nuisances rather than enforcing that gameplan. In that case, maybe siding-out Sinkhole instead of Thoughtseize is an option.

I don't side-in the Edicts because I think 4 BEB + 4 Snuff Out is enough to deal with their creatures (the rest is dealth with, ideally, with Krosan Grip) - again, I may be wrong.

P.S.: Those of you who want to test Extirpate, do it - no one here seems to be preventing you from doing so. Why waste time (and forum space) having a discussion that's leading you nowhere when you can do your own thinking/testing and make your own conclusions ?

P.P.S.: Personally, I don't really see why I'd want to play Extirpate over all the maindeck choices we have.


On play i see no problems with what your suggesting. Removing stifle is ok, since they have no sac lands. Thoughtseize on the other hand can rip their gameplan to shreds. I've noticed that once DS is finished with its TURN 1 play, it has but one remaining threat in its hand. Thoughtseize is a nice way to shut down a one trick pony like DS (Apart from SoFnI they have no draw engine).
On the draw, i'm a little worried about turn 1 moon effects and the lack of basics in the deck. If its not a turn one moon effect its likely a big fatty. I think Krosan Grip is too slow. 4 snuff out maindeck and board in Edicts is probably best. Or, only thing i can think of at the moment is to aggressively mulligan to FOW to combat that turn 1 moon effect.

MasterC
10-30-2008, 05:56 PM
Why doesn't the deck play 2 Bayou 1 Tropical? During testing on mws I sometimes faced the situation that I wasnt able to hit BB for Tombstalker or Sinkhole in time. And we dont play any card that costs UU except Force, which you usually dont want to hardcast.

nitewolf9
10-30-2008, 05:58 PM
Because having bayou in your opening hand sucks. We have been considering -1 flooded strand, +1 bloodstained mire though. That would probably be an ok switch.

Happy Gilmore
10-31-2008, 04:49 AM
It is difficult but not impossible to effectively cast :b::b: spells with 13 sources of black mana. Ponder and Brainstorm obviously help this a bunch. That being said, cutting blue sources is extremely suspect, and I don't believe there is any advantage to going down to 14. It will make Daze worse and will at times screw you out of playing cantirps. I can certainly get behind cutting a strand for a second Mire though.

mackaber
11-01-2008, 02:25 PM
Because having bayou in your opening hand sucks. We have been considering -1 flooded strand, +1 bloodstained mire though. That would probably be an ok switch.

I've actually made this switch and I'm very happy with it.
Also I've found myself loosing an awful lot to artifact based control (Stax and Quinn) so I've added Deeds to the sideboard shaving the numbers on other spells. My theory behind this was that there are decs where you have next to no chance to execute your primary gameplan and thus you need to play more controllish.Deed against quin or stax is just that bomb that will turn games that you could never win anymore back around plus it's overall flexibility is just too good to pass up.

Also and I know after all the flaming about Extirpate this is not the right point in time to bring this up but I've been strongly considering replacing the Crypts in the board with extirpate. So hear me out on this, while yes I am German, I totally hate extirpate but I have found that I have great troubles beating anything running LftL just because if I cannot profit from the early tempo gain by not finding a threat or having it stick, loam will pown my arse. Since anyone with more than 5 braincells will not let crypt steal their loam extirpate is just plain better suited for this. Also extirpate is a more flexible SB slot in combo matchups where you wanna board stuff like snuff out out but don't have anything to bring in.

Rood
11-01-2008, 07:38 PM
I've actually made this switch and I'm very happy with it.
Also and I know after all the flaming about Extirpate this is not the right point in time to bring this up but I've been strongly considering replacing the Crypts in the board with extirpate. So hear me out on this, while yes I am German, I totally hate extirpate but I have found that I have great troubles beating anything running LftL just because if I cannot profit from the early tempo gain by not finding a threat or having it stick, loam will pown my arse. Since anyone with more than 5 braincells will not let crypt steal their loam extirpate is just plain better suited for this. Also extirpate is a more flexible SB slot in combo matchups where you wanna board stuff like snuff out out but don't have anything to bring in.

If you're talking about Aggro Loam and not ITF then that's probally a terrible idea. They just Burning Wish Loam back and proceed to cave skull.

mackaber
11-01-2008, 08:13 PM
If you're talking about Aggro Loam and not ITF then that's probally a terrible idea. They just Burning Wish Loam back and proceed to cave skull.

Sounds like a terrible argument. If you actually suceed at removing Loam with Crypt he has Wish and Loam as outs. And in fact Loam recurs. Burning wish on the other hand does not and thus you need to spend only one counter. So yeah if he has wish and still has mana to cast it and you do not have a counter you are obviously boned but just being boned cause you have no real sollution to Loam (as in Crypt) in general seems like the worse choice. Admitedly versus the fear or intuition ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh Crypt is prolly better but against Aggro Loam it does nothing versus a competent opponent.
I just think depending on the metagame Extirpate could be more usefull since it adresses one of the most problematic cards.

nitewolf9
11-01-2008, 11:01 PM
You're forgetting that crypt not only hits their loam but all the lands in their yard as well. Extirpate is mediocre against aggro loam to say the least.
With crypt you buy a bunch of time, hurt them even if they have the burning wish, and can also randomly kill terravore with tombstalker. The more important point however is the fact that extirpate does nowhere near enough to stop ichorid, while crypt is awesome against them.

klaus
11-02-2008, 01:54 PM
Team MKM rocks Pro Tour Berlin (*cough* anyway, one of the major side events *cough*)

Cheers fellas,
yesterday I managed to take home the trophy for the Legacy event of the ProTour Berlin and picked up the #1 prize: 30 rev. Duals (!)
This is my "obligatory" report.

Nov. 1st: Attracted by the undeniably sexy prize support 113 players from all over Europe gather to fight for glory and, well, 40 Duals and stuff.
As expected, the majority of the field is made up by my homies from the Berlin area and players from Northern Germany.
UWr Dreadstill epically failing me at the Legacy Old Box Trial on the previous day made me want to play something really straight forward, yet versatile and just as powerful if possible. Also, making those 8 rounds while not suffering a burnout was part of the plan. As my teammates arranged 4 Goyfs and 4 Sinkholes my choice was fairly easy. A slightly modified Team America should turn out to be the optimal meta call.
Here's my list:

Team MKM* - NOV 2008
*TA 1.1

MD:
4 Thoughtseize
4 Sinkhole
4 Ponder
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Stifle
3 Snuff Out
1 Ghastly Demise (to be discussed)
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Tombstalker
1 Phyrexian Dreadnought (more on this choice @the bottom of the page..)
(41)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
3 Underground Sea
1 Bayou
1 Tropical Island
4 Wasteland
1 Island
1 Swamp
(19)

SB:
4 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Diabolic Edict
2 Krosan Grip
2 Engineered Explosives (to be discussed)
2 Tormod's Crypt (s.a.)
2 Dark Confidant (s.a.)


Round I
VS a Burn.dec playing Viking.
G1: After his Mountain->Lava Spike it's clear what I'm up against. I'm aware this MU can be troublesome if I don't manage to land an early fattie and beat for 5 per turn. With Thoughtseize, Snuff Out and Demise being dead cards, G1 might have turned out bad, so I dropped a turn 3 Nought ftw.
IN: 4 BEBS - OUT: creature hate
G2: A turn 2+3 Goyfs finish him in short order.

Round II
VS the Mighty Quinn (sans Painter combo)
As I later gather my opponent came in 5th the previous day. Being rooted in Extended he starts to chatter about the allegedly low playskill level of the average Legacy player. Good thing I could teach him a lesson. Hah!
G1: After mulling to 6 I keep a mana denial hand fit to beat any deck featuring lots of non basics..I scoop to Scepter+Chant (no MD outs - meh)
IN: 2 Bobs, 2 Grips, 2 EEs - OUT: Creature hate, 1 Stifle, 1 Nought
G2: I keep my 7 consisting of Fetch, Sea, Waste, Confidant, Daze, Force and Sinkhole which leads to him struggling for mana and folding to the goodies Bob drew. I think he didn't resolve a single spell after Bob hit.
G3: See G2. I destroy his lands like it was my job, counter anything relevant and kill him with Stalker.
At this point I still think that the deck had luck-sacked its way to that evil load of disruption...:wink:

Round III
VS Max playing UWb Cunning LS (pretty much agreed upon list)
I know Max from previous tourneys. He's a decent opponent and didn't commit any obvious blunders, afaik. I hadn't tested this MU before and wasn't quite aware that it's in my favor.
G1: OK. This was lucky..ich draw no less than 3 Sinkholes during the earlygame = he dies a painfull death
IN: 2 Grips, 2 Bobs - OUT: creature hate
G2: It was Max's turn to goddraw now. He kills 3 early Goyfs and somehow resolves 2 Humilities and 1 Crucible (+A. Ruins). I scoop.
G3: See G1. I thoughtseize him twice, destroy most of his land and 2 Stalkers stalk him to death. Max is pissed. I don't care.:cool:

Round IV
VS Marvin playing Geddon Stax
This is the first game that proved the basics' awesomeness.
G1: I waste his Tomb, daze a 3sphere, seize an O. Ring and have a Stalker enter the field. Marvin establishes a Crucible-Waste lock in the meantime. But the basics I fetched before shrug at his lock and the lonely Ghostly Prison, so Tombstalker (this guy needs a nick) knocks him out.
IN: 2 Bobs, 2 Grips, 2 EEs OUT: Creature hate, 1 Stifle, 1 Nought
G2: Marvin starts with Plains->Go (whew, so far so good!) I go land go, too and watch him drop a mysterious morph. Luckily I hold an EE exploding the Angel byebye. I continue to thoughtseize anything relevant, so Stalker can nail down my 4-0-0.

Round V
VS some nice Polish guy playing 4color LS
I knew what he was playing cause I'd watched his previous game (LS mirror) VS a friend of mine. Based on the experience I made against UWbLS (boasting 5 basics) I was really comfortable facing a version with 0-2 basics.
G1: I win the die roll. Thoughtseize reveals his 5-lander - did he know what he was up against, too? To make a long story short: zillion Wastelands, Stifles and Sinkholes ruin his day. Fun fact: Even though he drew some more land, he never had more than 2 in play.
IN: 2 Bob, 2 Grip - OUT: Creature hate
G2: See G1.
Seriously, this deck is soo evil I was afraid I'd grow devil horns and would've had to be excorcized after the event!:rolleyes:

Round VI
VS BW aggro featuring Wastelands, Vindicates, Grunts, Bobs and Vials
G1: I annihilate his land, thoughtseize and daze the rest and win with Lhurgoyfs.
IN: 3 Edicts, 1 EE - OUT: 2 Snuffout, 1 Ponder, 1?
G2: The gamestate looks favorable after turn 12 or so and then I make my first stupid mistake of the day. Ponder reveals me Snuff Out, Demise, Land (I'm holding crap and Edict). I pass, he drops S. Avenger which I addict eot, only to lose to the infinite cards of the Confidant he later drops - bleh!
G3: see G1. Tag team Tombstalkers do what they're supposed to do :cool: .

Round VII
VS some nervous Polish guy playing R/G Beatz
At that point we're they only players at 6-0-0. I was pretty sure this was the most unfavorable MU of the day and consulted my homies on whether I should offer a draw to better my chances on a #2 finish (whimpy, I know). Every single mate I talk to advises me to offer the ID so I quitetly wave goodbye to the title and those precious 30 duals, sniff.
After we're seated I offer the nervous Polish guy the draw I'm still seeking, but he declines. I then proceed with all the semi-logical and pseudo-mathematical argumentation I managed...and he still declines. So I go f*** that we're battling it out!
That was probably when the evil spirit that dwells in TA came to like me again. Here is how it went down:
G1: He wins the die roll and starts with Taiga->Rift Bolt. I had kept a mana denial hand boasting Daze and Wastes cause I figured that raping his mana base (pretty much destroying all) was the only out I had other than dropping the unlikely turn 2 Nought. Anyway, I waste his Taiga, only to watch him dropping another plus Figure of Destiny. I waste his 2nd Taiga, he frowns. Next, he drops a fetchland, attacks for 1 and passes without fetching. At the end of my turn Stifle strikes again, he double frowns and gets really nervous. In his turn he probably topdecks a B. Ring and attacks for 2 only to have me watch Sinkhole his last land and he's OUT! Fuck yeah! That felt good. :laugh:
After G1 he pseudo-relaxedly announces that he might consider a draw now. (*LAWLZ*) I'm thinking of the playset of BEBs and politely decline.
G2: Believe it or not: My starting 7 reveal me the Nougt combo and I start smiling, being aware there'd be nothing to stop me now.
I know, I know that was mega-lucky, really. But so funny, infinitely funny nonetheless.

Round VIII
VS Alex (A.)Trappe ("Atrappe" meaning "dummy" in German, no kidding). Fun fact #2 his mother's name is Angelica. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
A.trappe plays C. Breakfast. He figures he's the absolute underdog in this MU and offers to ID, which I gladly accept. 7-0-1 ftw? Hells yeah!

---

Some thoughts on the debatable choices:

Ghastly Demise: Testing showed that lifeloss via Snuff Out, TS, fetchies and FOWs can be an issue against aggro decks. Replacing a Snuff Out was a mini step towards a more balanced setup. Smother is very likely to replace Demise, however.

Dreadnought:
This is easily the most questionable choice I made. Nought, practically replacing land #20 has a whole lot offer though. Here's what me and a teammate (yes, Nightmare: >M. Ringwald<, again!) determined:
- silverbullet that can be game breaking
- gives mid/lategame Stifles a reason to exist
- entering G1 he makes opponents board in hate à la Grip (TA has no other targets though)
- I board the single copy out and smile an evil smile
- entering G2 I can be sure most of my oppent's non-creature hate went to the board, increasing the chances to win via Nought
- worst case scenarios: gives Goyfs +2+2, is counterbait, gets brainstormed away, destroys Bridges, etc..
- obviously this tech works only so long as it's secret so don't expect me to run that shit in the near future. I'd still be looking for a creature in this slot, though.


Mana base:
The basics saved my ass against Stax and BW aggro. There are several more archetypes against which they shine, though. Also having a more resilient mana base allows us to go down to a total of 19. The only change I'd currently consider is dropping a Strand in favor of the 2nd Mire.

The SB:
Dark Confidant:
- against "xyz-control.dec" he's simply the nutz and ensures we never run out of gas.
- as you've seen I left all the Stalkers in when boarding him in. This turned out to be just right, for Ponder and BS never let you down, ever.
- I was happy with Bob the entire day even though he "only" won me a single game. Against LS & CO he's simply my #1 threat.

Engineered Explosives:
- pretty much K. Grips #3&4
- with the advantage to break Chalice@1 not only faster but under Moon effects as well. Allowing BEBs to rock again.
- it's an invaluable sweeper hitting one of our arch enemies: Vial, Turn2, too.
- moreover it eats Zombie tokens justifying my going down to merely 2 Crypts (and thus making room for Bobs).

---

Props:
- MagicCardMarket.eu for sponsoring 'deluxe'
- Team MKM teammates for psychologic support
- Jens for lending me Sinkholes (this card is more evil than anything)
- Mucki for lending me his Goyfs
- M. Ringwald formaking me play that singleton Dreadnought
- Jan Sudmann (NQN on TS) for tactical support
- and most of all Deep6er and nitewolf9 for developing yet another MVP.dec


Thats all folks,
Peace,

Klaus, aka. Jaschar, Team-MKM

-edit-
not having to play against CBTop.dec certainly helped a bunch - this MU needs more testing before I can justify my SB approach.

Blitzbold
11-02-2008, 02:37 PM
Congratulations! Well done, mate.

I really like the deck and it's concept. The first thing that stuck out to me though was indeed it's manabase. I knew that it would be suicide to bring such a manabase to bigger tournaments over here in Germany, but adding basics was feverously declined by the deck's creators so far.

I am positive about the fact that adding both a basic swamp and island weakens the early game pressure the deck might apply, but I have always been a friend of stable mana bases (I played UGw Threshold with basics of each colour at GP: Lille back in 2005). Jaschar's success speaks for itself, though.

EDIT: As far as I know everyone declining a draw @ 6-0-0 deserves to loose. :-)

miro
11-02-2008, 04:57 PM
EDIT: As far as I know everyone declining a draw @ 6-0-0 deserves to loose. :-)

Hi there.
there were no top8 and that "nervous Polish guy" playing goyf sligh was my friend. We planed meet each other in the final round...I made my half of the plan wining against M.Ringwald? - i'm think :) (hello to you)
but he just missed his... loosing to himself in G1 and to singleton card in G2...

than we both suck birds in 8 round...

anyway :
congratulations to bringing TA to 1st place !!!
(i tried TA day before and go 2-3 drop...)

side note :
great event and kind players.
side note 2 : slops - no top 8... just straight 8 round swiss

darkalucard
11-02-2008, 08:24 PM
4 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
3 Underground Sea
1 Bayou
1 Tropical Island
4 Wasteland
1 Island
1 Swamp
(19)

While I agree with the inclusion of;
1x Island / 1x Swamp / 1x Bayou

I disagree with only 13 Lands that get/produce Blue Mana.

I think in the long run you would figure this out and add +2 if not prefurably +3 Blue Sources.

@ Klaus + Everyone; Do you agree? Thoughts?

klaus
11-02-2008, 08:42 PM
While I agree with the inclusion of;
1x Island / 1x Swamp / 1x Bayou

I disagree with only 13 Lands that get/produce Blue Mana.

I think in the long run you would figure this out and add +2 if not prefurably +3 Blue Sources.

@ Klaus + Everyone; Do you agree? Thoughts?

Given that you hardly ever need more than a single U source to function smoothly I'm hesitant to add more.
I admit that the addition of the 4th Underground Sea seems more than logical, though. Then again with basic Island you really HAVE that blue mana source you can rely on.
Screw that. I just changed my mind. I'll add Sea #4 in favor of that random Dreadnought. I just realized that opening hands with zero U sources are must mulligans 90% of the time.
Thanks. HAH. I needed that.
Yupp.:rolleyes:
What is more, I just fully realized that our Wastelands are actually only to be viewed as Sinkholes 5-8, not as mana sources. Nothing except Goyf and Stalker (sometimes) is payed with colorless mana (no, I don't count Daze and Snuff Out here). Even with Ponder/BS a total of 14 ("real") mana sources appear kind of overly optimistic.
Thanks again, darkalucard :)

aTn
11-05-2008, 07:40 PM
Nice build Klaus (and congrats on your results) !

I agree that the deck needs basic lands, in particular in an environment where the Dragon Stompy/Moon Thresh/LD decks match-up is relevant.

I'm not sold on the Dreadnought idea, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and test it.


Testing showed that lifeloss via Snuff Out, TS, fetchies and FOWs can be an issue against aggro decks.

I totally agree with that; that's why I'm currently running a 2-2 split between Snuff Out and G. Demise (there's too many randomness in my meta to play Smother over Demise).

I like EE in the SB with 1 basic Island and 1 basic Swamp; in particular, it enables you not to scoop under Magus of the Moon or Blood Moon.

I've also tried 2x Pernicious Deed in the SB for aggro match-ups (that run Vials and-or tons of basic lands) where you can simply side-in Edicts + Deed, take out the LD elements of the deck (Sinkhole + Stifle) and play more a controlish game. Of course, EE might fill that role better... I'll test it.


not having to play against CBTop.dec certainly helped a bunch - this MU needs more testing before I can justify my SB approach.

Siding-in 2 EE + 2 Grips seems pretty decent (but I guess 4 Grips would be better for that match-up).

Deep6er
11-06-2008, 01:45 AM
OK, this is going to be a long one.

@Klaus: First off, congratulations on the win. However, on to the more important matters.

1) Phyrexian Dreadnought? Seriously? A conditional threat that requires you to spend another card (in a deck that doesn't gain actual card advantage, but capitalizes on virtual card advantage) so that your opponent's removal can either gain them tempo or card advantage (or both in the case of Swords)? That seems terrible. All on the off chance that you could kill some of your opponent's draws by having them board in Grip. That's poor reasoning.

2) Dark Confidant is not tempo. Plus, he's not optimal against control (in this deck) because you already have strong game against them. Besides the fact that he's not a threat, he takes too long to get online. Every single turn that you just give them destroys your own tempo game while giving them outs to draw cards that hurt you. Not to mention the absolute nightmare scenario of flipping double Tombstalker. He's a poor addition to the deck, and a worse addition to the sideboard.

3) One-of Ghastly Demise? Snuff Out is better. Functionally superior in this deck and according to this deck's game plan. I am being quite serious here when I say that you should not mind your own life total. Your opponent's is the most important one to you. Yours is a resource to be used accordingly.

4) Do you understand what resilient means? Because your definition of the word seems suspect. Having an awful mana base that includes basics opens you up even more to Wasteland shutting off a color.

I'm completely serious when I say Dan and I spent a solid month arguing about the mana base. It took me three and a half fucking weeks to convince him that basics weren't necessary. Having few basics doesn't help you against Dragon Stompy because you're not guaranteed to draw them. Granted, having a higher than zero percent chance of drawing them is good, but not at the cost of damaging your percentage to have the right colors early against other decks. It's ridiculous. Team America's strength lies in it's powerful cards. Running basics actually hurts your chances to assemble the correct colors needed to play those cards.

5) Engineered Explosives? What? That card is also not tempo. The fact that it costs two plus the casting cost of whatever you're trying to blow up, combined with the fact that if you're using it to try to destroy Counterbalance it could be five or higher is absolutely awful for this deck. Plus, what if they fell for your ridiculous plan of "Dreadnought bait" and boarded in Krosan Grip? You fucked yourself right into a corner with your "clever plan". Explosives is slow and ineffecient. Grip is only partially better because it's harder to counter with Counterbalance, and it's an instant.

@Blitzbold: I pose the same question to you. A stable mana base is not a mana base that has one of basics. It's a mana base that can comfortably support all the spells in the deck in the face of disruption. Five color Threshold has a stable mana base. The Epic Storm has a stable mana base. Klaus' build of Team America does not have a stable mana base.

@ATN: Again, that's a terrible reason to fuck up your deck. Being afraid of life loss is one of the worst reasons to play sub optimal cards. If there's so much random-ness, then how is it that you propose the awful split helps? It's your sideboard that is supposed to help in that scenario, not bastardizing the main deck. Team America was built to be as broad as possible. The only strategy it doesn't have a main deck plan for (outside of racing + discard) is Ichorid. With most random decks, destroying their mana is a sound strategy when it's backed up by the largest creatures that are playable in this format. How is it that your testing showed that the life loss was too much when our testing (months and months of it) showed otherwise?

Also, Pernicious Deed? Seriously? Again, because you're not boarding into a different deck, all the tempo based cards are still in this deck. That means that boarding into non tempo strategies is only going to hurt the consistency of the deck. That's why it's a bad plan. It's fundamentally bad for the deck's game plan.

mackaber
11-06-2008, 05:51 AM
Also, Pernicious Deed? Seriously? Again, because you're not boarding into a different deck, all the tempo based cards are still in this deck. That means that boarding into non tempo strategies is only going to hurt the consistency of the deck. That's why it's a bad plan. It's fundamentally bad for the deck's game plan.

I think here you need to step back just a bit and reconsider. Yes this dec is a tempo dec and it is very good at what it does against almost all decs but there are actually decs out there where your tempo strategy is in fact doomed to fail, even more so when you are actually on the draw. One matchup in particular where 8 of your tempospells are nigh useless for generating tempo (Stifle and Wasteland) is Quinn. So seeing that a large part of your tempo strategy becomes defunct, this in turn devalues many of your card choices and more importantly your entire game plan in this specific scenario thus I (and it seems others as well) would argue that in a scenario where you cannot profit from the generated tempo (cause you know swording your threat or condeming it does generate a boat load of tempo for him and there ain't too much to do about it) or you are unable to generate tempo you should advance a more controollish game plan and incidently this very color combination is quite well suited to do so. Also many of the cards you are running maindec (actually all besides sinkhole, stifle and wasteland) are all rather potent at actually playing a control game and thus sideing in cards that let you play a more controllish game while perhaps diluting your original strategy actually increase your chances of winning a particular matchup if your original strategy was not well suited to winning in the first place.
Another example where this applies is Goblins. While overall the MU seems to be fairly solid I have lost plenty of games where my opponent resolved a vial on the play and I had no force and even if I could keep him down to one or 2 lands this with vial would easily suffice to get him to the late game where he'd drown me in CA. Thus Deed and or EE definetly deserve SB inclusion since the tempo swing one spell on the other side of the board creates actually unvalidates your argument that EE or Deed are not tempo since tempo always has to be seen as a relative concept. If you'd like me to elaborate on this I'll gladly do so but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.

URABAHN
11-06-2008, 09:58 AM
If you'd like me to elaborate on this I'll gladly do so but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.

I'd love to know what you're talking about. I'm not sure you fully understand what tempo is, which EE and Deed are not. I'm also not sure you fully understand the metagame if you're that worried about The Mighty Quinn and use it as your only example of a matchup where Stifle and Wasteland aren't that good. Have you seen a Quinn decklist? Wasteland is still useful against a key card in that deck and there are plenty of targets to Stifle, Grindstone being 1 example. Now you're done it, you've got me writing more about Quinn than I should have. As much as I love IBAs creations, Quinn isn't relevant in the format right now.

If, as you described, Team America is already solid Goblins, why would you run Deed and EE because of the few times you lost to a resolved Vial? What happened in those matchups that got you to the late game against that deck and you were beat by card advantage? If Goblins is a huge metagame concern for you, might I recommend Engineered Plague in the board?

Where do you play that you've been seeing lots of Goblins and Quinn?

klaus
11-06-2008, 11:23 AM
1) Phyrexian Dreadnought?
Dude, if you'd taken the time to read from my report to your post, you would've come across a post of mine stating my dropping Dreadnought in favor of the 4th Sea.:rolleyes:


2) Dark Confidant is not tempo. Plus, he's not optimal against control (in this deck) because you already have strong game against them. Besides the fact that he's not a threat, he takes too long to get online. Every single turn that you just give them destroys your own tempo game while giving them outs to draw cards that hurt you. Not to mention the absolute nightmare scenario of flipping double Tombstalker. He's a poor addition to the deck, and a worse addition to the sideboard.
First off: Sure, TA wants to be super fast. This fact, however, does not prohibit non-super fast boarding strategies (though I strongly suggest not running SB Deeds). Against any kind of control Bob is simply your strongest topdeck, 90% of the time.
Flipping a Stalker VS control doesn't kill you and double flipping him? Seriously, 4 Brainstorm+4 Ponder really shouldn't let that happen 99,92% of the time.
Testing with TA has shown me that against control.dec we run out of gas 1 out of 3 games due to zero CA engines. So I'm more than happy to sac 2 SB slots to pimp it up to 2 engines from the board.


3) One-of Ghastly Demise? Snuff Out is better.
Again, before going all "wh-what?!" take you're time to read my previous posts. That Demise has become a single Smother and I'm happy with it. Though I do see the pros of Snuff Out.. Here are some reasons for Smother:
- better against Confidant (and for that matter against black boys in general)
- better against straight forward tribal.dec (lifeloss DOES matter)
- better against Goyfsligh and the likes (again, lifeloss)
----ah well, I might have changed my mind again....
- worse against counterbalance
- worse against Lackey
- "fill in 1 more >real< reason to convince me" :laugh:


4) Do you understand what resilient means? Because your definition of the word seems suspect. Having an awful mana base that includes basics opens you up even more to Wasteland shutting off a color.
Since you're 500% sold on running no non-basics, I won't imply you're wrong about it (as to not spark a flood of hatred).
That being said, I'd have gone 5-2 without basics (I didn't even face DS or heavy LD decks) and I'll never consider cutting those 2 dear basics of mine:mad: ever.
PS: Going down to 6 (from 8) green spells between SB and MD makes my version less dependant on green as a mana source which further corroborates my 1 basic Island, 1 basic swamp approach.


5) Engineered Explosives?
I said it before and I'll say it again: EE has to be viewed as pseudo Grips 3&4. While I agree that Grip is slighty superior at being Grip and doing what Grips do, EE is way more versatile.
- As a Zombie token sweeper they partially justify my going down to 2 Crypts
- they get rid of Chalice@1 faster (This is madness!?! THIS. IS. TEMPO!)
- set at 3 they deal with Moons. Even with Moons in play. Oh snap. That only works with my basics. Kidding aside: DS/MoonThrash is an issue.
- they get rid of Vials as early as turn 2 (oh snap! tempo again)
- plus EE isn't a bad topdeck in case Vial.dec didn't find its namesake
- they kill Mongeese, opposing mana artifacts (combo), hordes, the list goes on - and the mana investment is balanced out by the opportunity to hit multiple targets.
- bottom line being: tempo is relative.
- fun fact: versatiliy is good, even for tempo decks.
- also, it'd be more pro if you'd consider not adressing everything from your black/white thinking angle - though I accept that this is your personal style.

Peace,
Klaus

mackaber
11-06-2008, 11:36 AM
I mainly play on MWS and while I don't think Quinn is a real metagame concern playing against it did show me that decs with lot's of basics are major problems since you can't necesarily capitalize on your tempo tools. I mentioned quinn more of an example of a dec that gives you no real way of efficiently capitalizing of your tempo gains.

Let's take the example of how Aether Vial creates tempo to elaborate on relative tempo gains. Essentially what Aether Vial does over the course of 5 turns is convert 1 spent mana into an amount of mana equal to the number of drops it nets you. So assuming you hit your curve from 1 to 4 you have efficiently saved yourself a mana expenditure of 10 (1+2+3+4) -1 (the cost of vial) = 9 mana. While yes all these spells come into play a turn later than if you had cast them you have now freed up your mana to do other things with your lands like casting more creatures porting wasting or Warren Weirding.

So let us assume that the goblin Player resolves a turn one vial and the TA player in the first 3 turns can sinkhole and waste one of the gobo players lands this would normally be very good for the the TA player since each destroyed land would usually equate into a virtual time walk and thus a tempo gain if the board is stalled. Sadly if the Goblin player has not forgotten his brain at the hospital he will have added yucky little counters to his vial thus still executing his game plan (produce little green men and swarm you with CA from Ringleaders, matrons and such) almost unhindered and making your alleged tempo gains rather moot because vial on it's own has and will net him a hell of a lot more mana (and thus tempo) than what you where able to deny him.

If on the other hand the TA player would now spend 3 mana for EE or 4 mana for deed to rid himself of the vial and perhaps some of the Goblins this at first appears like a loss of tempo since you have invested more mana to kill the vial than the goblin player has to cast it. But if you remember that this very Vial might have saved the goblin player 9 mana up to turn 5 the fact that you paid more to handle the vial than he did to cast it actually netted you a relative tempo gain assuming EE or deed were also able to clear the board of the creatures produced by vial in the interim as well, which is usually the case.

The point of all this is that while spending more mana to remove something than it cost to cast does represent a loss of tempo for you it can actually result in a relative tempo gain.

Illissius
11-06-2008, 01:27 PM
@ Deep6er: How do you reconcile the positions that (a) you should not care about your own life total (and even less against control) and (b) that the potential to flip Tombstalker is a reason not to play Dark Confidant?

I'm ambivalent about Confidant. On the one hand, a tempo based weapon against control decks would likely be preferable. On the other hand, I'm having trouble thinking of any which aren't already in the maindeck. If you wanted a card to bring in against control decks, what would it be?

nitewolf9
11-06-2008, 01:46 PM
I would say hymn to tourach, and that card was in the board for a while. Diabolic edict was chosen over it because it was stronger against threshold (letting you put more pressure on a scarce resource) and helps against other aggressive decks.

This is the board we have been trying out and it seems pretty good:

4 tormod's crypt
3 diabolic edict
3 hydroblast (not really much different than BEB, but considering that it has the potential to matter when putting cards in the yard for a tombstalker, hydroblast might be arguably better...it probably isn't very relevant though).
3 krosan grip
2 reanimate

Reanimate gives you a strong tool against zoo/sligh/any deck where having more tarmogoyfs is extremely important.dec while also giving you a flexible board tool to bring in against some control decks to up your "threat density".

Deep6er
11-06-2008, 04:09 PM
@Illissius: It's simple actually. Confidant slows you down. Therefore, you have more time to take incidental bits of damage here and there. Because he's slows you down, taking sixteen damage from him becomes a legitimately worrying scenario.

If I wanted a card to bring in against control decks (which I don't), then it would be Hymn to Tourach. Most control decks are capable of drawing cards, and you need to use some method to keep them from doing so reliably. Hymn is probably the best of the worst here, but it's definitely strong against control. I don't think it's strong enough for inclusion, but if I was walking into a metagame that was ninety-nine percent Landstill, then I'd probably do it.

@mackaber: No, by siding in cards that are inherently opposing to the core of the deck's game plan, you weaken and bastardize the deck to unhealthy levels. Hurting the deck's game plan by siding in slow cards means that the tempo based cards that you're looking to draw early (Sinkhole, Daze, Thoughtseize, Snuff Out, and most of the other cards in the deck) are weakened. They're actually poor for executing your strategy because they weaken the deck's ability to follow a game plan. This deck functions well because it's straightforward, and has a reliably simple path to victory. Disrupt your opponent, then play cheap beaters and attack while they're struggling to recover. Bastardizing that strategy is bound to weaken the deck. What you're missing is that siding in slow cards is actually worse for the deck than not siding at all. Against Quinn, I would still use Sinkhole to keep Daze relevant. Against Goblins, I'd still use Sinkhole to destroy their land so they can't cast Warren Weirding (which is one of the few relevant spells that they have against you). Pernicious Deed is slow and inefficient. Saying that you can destroy Vial because of your two-of Engineered Explosives is the height of lunacy because if you're just going to have a fucking two-of, why not make it Engineered Plague? Your argument is ridiculous because the match ups where you would bring in Explosives are already generally positive for you. Take a look:

1) Goblins. Already favorable. Blast is a strong weapon against them post board as well.

2) Storm combo. Are you serious? Thoughtseize, Daze, Force. You have one of the worst decks out there for Storm combo to play against.

3) Zoo type decks. The casting costs on their creatures are all over the place. Wild Nacatl, Tarmogoyf, Wooly Thoctar. They range all over the place from one to three. Explosives might be a two for one, but by then you've already taken damage and given them turns. The damage is not terribly relevant, but the fact that you spent a turn to play the card is. That was a turn that you didn't spend attacking their mana base or playing a huge creature. Poor inclusion for this match up.

4) Stax and Dragon Stompy. Seriously? A two-of Explosives is not going to help this match. Deed might, but you're looking at getting two colors against a deck that has just as many methods of attacking mana bases as you do. Again, it's a poor inclusion because it's unlikely to reliably help you. All you're doing is bastardizing your sideboard to delude yourself into thinking there's something you can do. You would need a variety of completely different cards to help this match up.

@Klaus: Yes, I know you said you were changing the Dreadnought. However, I addressed the problem by dealing with it now. I'm glad that you're changing the Dreadnought, but I think you're doing so for the wrong reasons. I'd rather lay out the reasons so that you can understand why it was the wrong inclusion, rather than arguing about it later with somebody else.

How is it that your testing and mine differ so drastically? I've found that with tight play, control is a pretty simple, straightforward match up. Destroy their lands, drop cheap beaters, attack. Counter some spells if you can. Generally, the match ups against control have been blowouts. Sometimes they assemble the most ridiculous draws and opening hands possible, but rarely that's the case. Control in most forms is a pretty simple match for Team America. However, because Team America is focused on being a tempo deck, boarding in slow cards does, in fact, hurt the deck. Destroying your own tempo in order to bastardize yourself into a slower, more controlling deck is guaranteed to be a bad idea. It's a bad idea because your cards aren't going to work to that end. Daze doesn't help in the late game. Neither does Sinkhole. Snuff Out is terribly inefficient if you use mana to play the card. Do you see what I'm saying? By boarding in these slow, controlling cards, you creating a schizophrenic deck wherein it's own cards can't form a coherent strategy.

I did read your post. I did read how you were changing it to Smother. Effectively, that's worse. Mana is the most important limiting factor to how many spells you can play in a turn. This deck tries to cheat that by playing spells like Daze, Force, and Snuff Out. Removing the capability of this deck to generate obscene amounts of tempo by playing twice as many spells as the other guy is an awful move. Also, Smother is rarely tempo because creatures that are commonly played are in the one to two mana cost range. That means you're not getting a return on tempo, and it's also capable of slowing down your plan because you have to keep mana open to kill their guy.

Being absolutely set on running basics is a bad plan. I'll try to convince you otherwise, but I'm telling you right now that beyond being bad, it's irrational. I would highly recommend against them.

Explosives is not pseudo Grip. It's awful for this deck.

As a sweeper for Zombie tokens, it's bad. A better strategy is just to use Crypts to negate Bridge's ability. If it's not in the graveyard when the ability resolves, they don't get tokens.

As a method of getting rid of Chalice of the Void, it's sub optimal. (It's not tempo because it costs exactly the same amount of mana to destroy as it cost to play.)

Sure, they can get rid of Blood Moon. But, do you see that you had to have both of your basics in play? They're fucking one-ofs dude. In order to cast your spells, you won't really be able to fetch them up reliably. Plus, it means that you've had to blow two fetchlands in order to find them. If you did, that means that the Moon effect is coming down on turn three or so. That's fucking terrible for them. You have plenty of answers without needing to destroy your mana base.

It's not fucking tempo to destroy a vial. It costs three mana to destroy an Aether Vial. Three fucking mana is three times what the vial cost to play.

Sure, they kill Mongeese, but it's irrelevant. Mongeese are smaller than all of your creatures so it's fucking pointless.

Bottom line being: Explosives is terrible because it slows your game plan, and for a tempo deck, that's terrible. Tempo may be relative, but for this deck it's a method to achieve it's goal. Fucking with that is a bad idea.

Fun Fact: versatility is only good if it doesn't rape your tempo game in the ass.

Also, it'd be more pro if you realized that it's not a black/white angle. It's a "I've done a lot of testing and realized this is how it accurately works" angle. It's a good angle, I recommend you try it out sometime.

Rood
11-06-2008, 05:42 PM
1) Goblins. Already favorable. Blast is a strong weapon against them post board as well.


I don't know about this...I tested the MU quite a bit and saw it was pretty well favored for Goblins without E-plague in the board. At best it could only be 45/55 for TA.

Deep6er
11-06-2008, 06:04 PM
No lies, Dan and I tested that match up until I was blue in the face. The few games I won were because of repeatedly casting Warren Weirding, and early Vials. Those games, however, were few and far between. I would comfortably claim a seventy percent in favor of Team America for this match up. Especially considering that post board Blasts are extraordinarily strong against Goblins.

nitewolf9
11-06-2008, 06:08 PM
By the way stifle is also amazing against them. And playing huge creatures. And blowing up all their land. And playing like 3 spells on turn 2 or something like that.

Dr.AgOn
11-06-2008, 06:11 PM
wouldn't smother be a nice sideboard option instead of edict?
against sui or rock I board in the edicts and side out the snuff outs, cause they don't have that many creatures. but smother would be better if they play 2 or more black creatures. on the other hand edict is better against specter...
I think I'll test playin smother in the board instead of edict. This is no meta choice. I just like that card more. I know you guys probably tested it a billion times and analyzed neurobiomedical statistical parametric resources, but please give me one of those arrogant and critical "I'm the inventor of the deck and no one's allowed to change it" feedbacks.

nitewolf9
11-06-2008, 06:14 PM
The reason edict is played over smother is that it is unconditional, and much stronger against threshold. If there's a lot of sui around then smother might be better, but edict also has the chance of killing tombstalker. With most decks they don't get a chance to get many threats through your disruption anyway, so edict is pretty strong.


on the other hand edict is better against specter...
.


How is edict better against specter?

mackaber
11-06-2008, 06:19 PM
It's not fucking tempo to destroy a vial. It costs three mana to destroy an Aether Vial. Three fucking mana is three times what the vial cost to play.


This statement makes me wonder if you actually read my post.
Not dealing with that vial will let the goblin player jerk of with an endless stream of gobs disabling your entire strategy while you waste time destroying their lands.
Also constructively dealing with other peoples arguments does not entail merely repeating your own argument but dealing with their's. My point stands that in the cases where the opposing dec offers few angles of attack to your disruption strategy or can deal effiviently with your threats (StP) TA is merely a sitting duck. You can repeat a million times what the decs supposed to do but in some cases this is easier than in others and in those other situations other strategies should be at least considered.

Deep6er
11-06-2008, 06:51 PM
I find it mildly humorous that you would accuse me of not reading your post. Had you read my post, you would have found that I split it into sections in order to answer particular people.

Your section had a helpful tag (@mackaber:) that I used before my points. The section you quoted had another helpful tag. This one was slightly different. You might recognize it as looking like this "@Klaus:".

Klaus had made a point in his post about how destroying a Vial was tempo. That's completely incorrect. Therefore, I felt the need to point out how he was wrong. Had it been in response to something you said, it would have been put under the "@mackaber:" section.

But here's something that you're failing to consider: every deck in the format (even Ichorid to some extent) has something that this deck disrupts. Every single deck. Do you know what happens if you keep Goblins off of black mana? They can't cast Warren Weirding. I lost quite a few games when I was playing Goblins against Team America because I couldn't cast what was essentially the most important spell in my entire deck against them. It's difficult to race when he has a huge ass blocker, and a guy that flies in the air. Especially when you can only drop one creature a turn, if that. There are quite a few tricks in the Goblins match up that you're neglecting. If they don't have any lands, then they're still relying entirely on the Vial to play some sort of Magic. That means that the creatures they have to have in their hand need to match the Vial's counters, which isn't always the case. Plus, since they can't go back down, once it reaches a certain point, you have an exact number of cards to worry about. Your land destruction is still relevant against a Goblin player who has an active Vial.

Intelligent use of your removal and Stifles can easily allow you enough time to tempo them out of the game using Tombstalker/Tarmogoyf. Discard is also very powerful against them too, since they're relying entirely on a single card. Vial is not the end of the game for Team America, and to assume it is points towards flawed logic on your part.

What possible deck is immune to all of Team America's disruption strategies?

Even if a deck does have Swords to Plowshares, you still have other forms of controlling that action. Thoughtseize, counter magic, and land destruction all of a way of impacting their ability to play meaningful and relevant Magic.

If Team America is not doing what it's supposed to be doing, the game is lost, because many of the cards in the deck are suited to a single task. Assuming that it isn't is a decent exercise, but assuming that your opponent also has all the requisite cards to deal with your strategy is stretching the bounds of the exercise quite thin.

I'm not dismissing all other strategies except for that that are inherently against the deck's fundamental strategy. If you were playing The Epic Storm, and somebody recommended a sideboard of fifteen basic lands, you'd ignore them, right? There are some strategies that have legitimately no merit. From that point, it's a short step to realizing that all ideas have to be governed by their relevance and merit to the discussion. Because adding slow cards is opposing the deck's core value, it's without merit to discuss it. It's like trying to add Swords and Pyroclasm to the deck. It's nonsensical.

The point in discussion is for me to relate my points and then for us to discuss about the objective quality of my points as they relate to your points (a bit of a paraphrase, but useful for the point I'm making). When I make a point, I make all of the arguments that I have in favor of that point. I don't hide things or wait to reveal certain points. If you think I'm repeating myself, then you're missing the point of the discussion. I've made all of my points, and the burden is now on you (through either tournament placements or logical debate) to prove me otherwise. The list that Dan and I came up with placed fourth in a 127 person tournament. As far as crucibles go, I'd say that's a reasonable indicator. Additionally, the testing results say that the deck has strong game against decks that you appear to want sideboard for. I argue that's the incorrect course of action because sideboard space is at a premium and should not be used for match ups that are already favorable. You argue otherwise. So, now that we've clarified our standing points, why don't you take the next step and prove to me (either through tournament placement or logical debate, preferably both if you're capable) why you're right and I'm wrong.

Theoretically, if Klaus were to win another couple of events with that exact list and sideboard, that would be a compelling point in his favor. That has to happen first. Because of the weakness of certain cards in his sideboard, I have doubts.

URABAHN
11-06-2008, 06:55 PM
This statement makes me wonder if you actually read my post.
Not dealing with that vial will let the goblin player jerk of with an endless stream of gobs disabling your entire strategy while you waste time destroying their lands.
Also constructively dealing with other peoples arguments does not entail merely repeating your own argument but dealing with their's. My point stands that in the cases where the opposing dec offers few angles of attack to your disruption strategy or can deal effiviently with your threats (StP) TA is merely a sitting duck. You can repeat a million times what the decs supposed to do but in some cases this is easier than in others and in those other situations other strategies should be at least considered.

Mackaber, it's D-E-C-K. Have you played the Goblins v. Team America matchup? I think you have and it sounds like you're losing your shirt in that matchup. Instead of arguing about whether or not Team America needs an answer for AEther Vial, maybe you should ask specific questions about that matchup from the more experienced players. I'm really surprised you're losing that badly to Goblins because Tarmogoyf and Tombstalker can kill the Goblin player before they ramp up the Vial to 4 or 5. Are you somehow suggesting that not dealing with Vial is going to create tempo for Goblins? Are you also suggesting that Goblins doesn't need lands in play, they only need a Vial to beat you? And when did StP become a threat in any deck, much less Team America?

Obfuscate Freely
11-06-2008, 09:27 PM
The list that Dan and I came up with placed fourth in a 127 person tournament. As far as crucibles go, I'd say that's a reasonable indicator.

Theoretically, if Klaus were to win another couple of events with that exact list and sideboard, that would be a compelling point in his favor.
I guess winning a 113-person event just doesn't compare to making the semifinals of a 127-person event? Those 14 extra players were probably really good, or something.

This seems a little inconsistent to me.

Deep6er
11-06-2008, 11:20 PM
I guess winning a 113-person event just doesn't compare to making the semifinals of a 127-person event? Those 14 extra players were probably really good, or something.

This seems a little inconsistent to me.

That's because you're missing two things.

1) I have the results of my own testing data here. We all know that the list is good, but individual card choices are the discussion here, not the deck's core. Therefore, Klaus' admittedly last second inclusion (which are purported to later be mistakes) are detractions from his list as it stands. My argument is that the deck got there through the strength of it's core cards, and his additions were weaker than they could have been.

2) You're also missing the fact that because it's the changes that we're discussing, and because he admitted that they were last second inclusions/mistakes, then it's necessary for him to prove that his list is better. Obviously, because they were accidental inclusions means that he did not have the opportunity to test them. I've Top 8'd with Mountain Goat in my deck (Mono Blue Control if you're curious). That doesn't mean that Mountain Goat is a stellar addition to that deck as a whole. Testing is the important factor here. I only used the reference to Dan's win to prove that the list was a good starting point that helped prove the core of the deck. The additions should be discussed because most of us agree on the core. It's the additions where we're encountering friction.

nitewolf9
11-07-2008, 12:05 AM
I guess winning a 113-person event just doesn't compare to making the semifinals of a 127-person event? Those 14 extra players were probably really good, or something.

This seems a little inconsistent to me.

Yeah, well, Biff, you're forgetting one thing...WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?! *incoming frisby-like brass match tray with pointy leaves all over it*

raharu
11-07-2008, 01:23 AM
It's the additions where we're encountering friction.

Additions? Like what, lands? There isn't any extra space to shuffle or cut, in the MD at least.

Deep6er
11-07-2008, 02:22 AM
Additions to the deck and sideboard. He has a lot of notions that I consider flawed, and we're discussing them. Differences is a possible term, as is substitutions. Changes works too. Would you like a thesaurus?

mackaber
11-07-2008, 04:32 AM
Deep6er: Incidently I will not be able to win any 100 man tournies any time in the near future to provide you the propper proof that deed or EE might actually belong in the SB. If I do win tourneys they'd be small local tournies and I could win those with a dec of Cavius design if need be, so I would not be proving too much there. So I'll have to provide logical arguments and hope others will follow my logic.
I'm still of the conviction that you are overestimating your Goblin Matchup (something many people have been doing for quite some time) and I have tested the matchup thouroughly and I am aware of pretty much all the tricks of the trade, such as destroying black mana before dropping dudes, stifling vial activations, and especially snufing warchiefs and seizing at critical junctures of the game. I wholeheartedly agree with your asssesment that if you keep the Goblin player of all their mana a vial alone will not win them the game. I do contest however that this is an unlikely scenario. Also I do not believe you will ever win with a Goyf or Stalker before vial has trickeled to 4 unless you expend multiple stifles on achieving that. Actually it has happend to me that the Goblin player thanks to his vial has been able to deny me of my mana due to wastelands and ports.
As it stands all I was ever suggesting is replacing some copies of Krosan Grip (a 3 mana instant) and other sideboard tools with Pernicous Deed (3 mana plus X Enchantment) or EE (2 mana plus X Artifact). While I am aware that these spells counteract the core idea behind the dec Krosan Grip doesn't exactly perpetuate it either and thus making such changes would actually heighten the efficeny of your SB slots because they increase the flexibility of your SB. The main point of contention here being that I am suggesting that there are matchups where the tempo plan might falter and this necesitates a more rockish approach which the dec is quite capable of, whereas you are of the conviction this is never the case thus bastardizing the dec will decrease it's efficiency.
Also I have not seen you refute the argument that Vial generates tempo and that destroying Vial for 3 mana nets you a relative tempo gain in terms of saved mana.

URABAHN
11-07-2008, 09:00 AM
Also I have not seen you refute the argument that Vial generates tempo and that destroying Vial for 3 mana nets you a relative tempo gain in terms of saved mana.

No, I'm pretty sure Deep6er addressed this, but what I think you're trying to do is try to tell us that Vial is somehow going to generate infinite tempo if you leave it on the table for X turns. You sound like the people who claim that playing Oxidize on a Jayemdae Tome is card advantage because you stop all future activations of the card. I'm thinking you don't really care about the Goblins matchup, have drawn your own conclusions, and feel that some sort of maindeck AEther Vial removal is that important in Team America. If that's the case, it's obvious you're doing it wrong. Since you've drawn your own conclusions about the matchup and aren't asking for one single bit of advice, I think you're going to continue to lose to Goblins. EE and Deed aren't going to correct whatever mistakes you're making.

nitewolf9
11-07-2008, 10:52 AM
I don't know why we are still discussing bringing in deed or ee against goblins. That is a terrible plan. With that aside, what other matchups would you want those cards against? Ichorid?


I am aware of pretty much all the tricks of the trade, such as destroying black mana before dropping dudes, stifling vial activations, and especially snufing warchiefs and seizing at critical junctures of the game.

Why would you ever stifle a vial activation, unless you were going to win the very next turn and wanted to preemptively eliminate a blocker? Stifle is ridiculous against goblins because it can "counter" matron, ringleader, and sgc even if they have a ramped up vial on the table, in addition to being mana denial and wasteland protection. This, along with the fact that you're suggesting EE or deed to "fix" that matchup, makes me question your experience. We've tested against that deck many times, and I've played against it in tournaments with success; I'm still pretty sure you're ahead. Goblins just isn't the powerhouse it once was thanks to the efficiency of threats like tarmogoyf and tombstalker, and cards like thoughtseize. It's just so slow and you're strategy is great against them.

klaus
11-07-2008, 11:04 AM
@Deep6er/Nitewolf9:

What are TA's worst MUs (other than DS) from your experience?
How do you approach those MUs and what did your testing teach you about it?

Klaus