[Deck] Canadian Thresh (a.k.a. RUG Tempo, Tempo Thresh)

[catmint]

People said that Deathrite Shaman and Abrupt Decay would push Canadian out of the top tier. Turns out their WRONG. I've playtested against BUG Control and Team America for 20 matches each, and the results were: BUG Control -> 15/5 (Win/Losses) and Team America (18/2).

I agree with you that those people where wrong. It would be different if a lot of Knight of reliquary decks would be a thing, but Mavericks decline and more 3color blue decks with greedy manbases is surely not a big problem for canadian. :smile: However your results are in no way representative of what the actual matchup% is. Can't speak for BUG Tempo (only played it a little) but I can imagine that RUG has an edge here due to playing more effecient spells & Stifle generating a tempo advantage or totally screwing them.

For BUG control I think it is around 50/50 with a slight edge on one side or the other depending how the deck is tuned. Biggest factor: Skill advantage. Against BUG control I played the matchup from both sides a lot and I feel it to be in RUGs favour if people only play 4 decay as their removal (which is common right now) but it still comes down to disrupting the opponents manbase. In my BUG control list I respect RUG a lot playing 2 disfigure, 3 Abrupt decay, 2 Baleful Strix & 2 Liliana maindeck along 3 Goyf and 3 Snapcaster mage with 23 lands including basics. There is additional removal in the board: 2 ghastly demise, 1 Abrupt decay, 1 EE which gives me the feeling to put an even fight from the BUG side.

Deathrite Shaman is a must kill for RUG, but there are also Spell Pierces & Discard to trade with removal & it is not like RUG could not use the burn for the other creatures, liliana and the face later on. Fact is it is a 1 mana spell blocking eraly monogooses, providing life-gain, shrinking GY & giving mana - all things affecting RUG's gameplan. So the argument that you have 11+ removal spells post board does not mean Deathrite is not a relevant card (also a good play late if both players are in topdeck mode).

Concerning tuning RUG:
What I already posted and me and buddies tested very successfully is plaxmanta as a 2of in the SB. BUG and also UWx (which has a ton of sweepers) still relies on spot removal and therefore Plaxmanta just win's games on a regulare basis more often than a card like sulfuric vortex, which can be more powerful against Miracles but is a bit more swingy (either less attractive with decay around). Funny side effect is Plaxmanta can come in versus combo decks as end of turn play instead of mongoose.

Hidden gibbons: Never tested it, but with BUG control (minmal counter spells) I would love to play against it- casting my instants 2nd main, eot or in attack phase. Also UWx or mirror I feel the card gives the opponent to many options + it's not like a goyf trump.

[Pherion]

I'm not particularly liking Hidden Gibbons either. It still dies to Abrupt Decay, and there are many ways for your opponent to play around it. Not being triggered on Sorcery is a big deal to me.

Plaxmanta I'm thinking looks like a lot of fun! I just bought a play set on Ebay LOL. I'll be looking forward to testing it next time I play some Legacy!

[cash]

Don't see the point with Plaxmanta. If you cast it in response to decay it does nothing since your creature has already been targeted. Am I wrong?

[Sasan]

While Decay is on the stack you cast Plaxmanta. It resolves first and Decay has no legal target anymore.

[Ziveeman]

How relevant is Thought Scour now with Deathrite in the format? It sounds a little counterintuitive but being able to power up your Mongooses faster than the Deathrites can shrink them is pretty relevant. It makes it easier early game to start attacking through a Deathrite when Mongoose is just sitting there. I'm not sure if it's better than just more burn. Figure I'd just bring it into discussion at the very least.

[Water_Wizard]

How relevant is Thought Scour now with Deathrite in the format? It sounds a little counterintuitive but being able to power up your Mongooses faster than the Deathrites can shrink them is pretty relevant. It makes it easier early game to start attacking through a Deathrite when Mongoose is just sitting there. I'm not sure if it's better than just more burn. Figure I'd just bring it into discussion at the very least.

Thought Scour shined the brightest when Sneak Attack was the DTB around May/June of 2012.

Thought Scour allowed you to pump your Gooses quickly while you were waiting for that 'ultimate' turn where they would try to cast their enabler.

Vs. 'fair' decks, where there is turn-to-turn interaction, Mongoose should grow on its own.

The best way to handle Deathrite is with more burn - run at least 7 burn spells or 6 burn spells and 1 Dismember.

Spell Snare (or Spell Pierce) has replaced Thought Scour as cards 59 and 60 as of late.

[Que]

I like the Foothills/Strand split, actually. People are definitely more wary of a Tarn/Rainforest/Delta on turn 1. They see the former and they don't immediately put you on RUG. I've gotten to live the dream with Foothills into Stifle, and it's nice. A friend playing UWb Tempo got to do something similar with Marsh Flats, but that's another story...



I hate to say it, but I'm falling into the BUG camp as of now. I took Deathrite TA to my locals last night and left feeling pretty good. Not sure if I'm going to stick with RUG or not going forward. My last list that I planned to play at Baltimore but everyone bailed on me last minute:

4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Tarmogoyf
1 Snapcaster Mage

4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Stifle
4 Spell Snare
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Chain Lightning
1 Dismember

4 Wooded Foothills
3 Flooded Strand
4 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland

SB:
3 Submerge
3 Spell Pierce
1 Envelop
1 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Sulfur Elemental
2 Rough//Tumble
1 Krosan Grip


Deck felt super good when I was tuning it. I went back to the basics instead of all the cutesy stuff that I had been playing. Major changes from my Gen Con list which I usually considered as my base when I tweaked for an upcoming tournament. This time, I just gutted it. Some notes on the list:

- It might just be personal preference, but I hate casting Tarmogoyf, for a couple of reasons. (1) Nimble Mongoose having Shroud shifts the equilibrium of spot removal to other things. While we can protect Delver early when both sides' resources are light, tapping out to play Tarmogoyf leaves us fairly exposed. That said... (2) I hate having to play this guy early. I find it very similar to last Standard where it was risky tapping out to play Geist on t3. Sure, you got your finisher, but you are also incredibly exposed. If you do tap out, you also turn off conditional things like Spell Snare, or Spell Pierce in my previous lists, which can be brutal. With only 18 lands, you can't afford to just hold it either. The great paradox. 2 seems like the correct number for my playstyle.

- I cut Spell Pierce for Spell Snare. The former is a great utility card but not as impressive as the latter has been for me. The format is shifting towards 2cc again and moving directly up to 4 a couple of weeks ago was definitely the correct read. It does force you to play tighter and prioritize your mana denial, but hey -- that's why we play this deck.

- I moved from Forked Bolt to Chain Lightning. And Fire//Ice to Dismember. Maverick is no longer as crazy popular as it has been, and there are more mirrors, Deathrite Shamans, and Merfolk running around. People also get smarter and realize that they shouldn't walk into a Forked Bolt as well. Besides Goblins, I rarely want to have the card anyways, so I felt comfortable cutting it. To answer Tarmogoyf in the mirror and other niche cards like Tombstalker (and Knight if people are still playing it), I cut the Fire//Ice for Dismemeber. I've always hated the card but I also realize necessity over preference. As a result, I brought Sulfur Elemental back into the sideboard to deal with Lingering Souls.

- The Snapcaster Mage replaced the Sylvan Library slot. I realized that although Sylvan Library is a house, if you want to rely on it to win (which I was not doing) versus relying on it to be cantrip-ish-slot-number-9 (which I was doing), you need more than the single copy I was running. Since I already put a non-blue card in Dismember in, I wanted another value card that was blue which I could play. Initially it was a Vendilion Clique, but as good as that card was sometimes I missed that ninth cantrip. So I settled on something with Flash that could rebuy.

- I went from a 8 Fetch, 6 Dual split to a 7 Fetch, 7 Dual split. I never really wanted the 19th Land (and I've tried a lot of stuff to make sure I getting value out of that land, including playing Cephalid Coliseum at some point) but I wanted more duals that I could use. This was a fairly elegant solution, and is actually pretty decent against the Mirror, since you have the extra dual and are exposing your fetchlands just a hair less.

- I cut Sylvan (previous logic above) and Life from the Loam (same logic as Library) and streamlined the board. Krosan Grip became necessary, but besides that, I simplified things a lot. And no, I'm still not playing GY hate. Contrary to what people may think I actually have an immense respect for GY based decks, enough that I believe the 1-2 slots I'm going to open up in the board wouldn't even be enough to swing those matchups. Hence, I'd rather board for something else.


That was lengthier than I wanted it to be, but... yeah.

Sounds legit. Would you advocate the list? I don't believe RUG has ran its course. ;p

[Sasan]

The list is brillant. I run the same main deck except one Counterspell instead of the 4th Snare.

RUG is still a beast of a deck, even vs BUG.

Concerning BUG Delver: Has anyone won after extensive and real testings vs BUG on a regular base pre-board?

I cannot believe the test results of the last page. They seem to be too perfect.

My experience vs BUG:

- Divert is too situational and not always works
- Green Sun Zenith --> Mongoose is good but because of Deathrite the creature not always gets threshold.
- Plaxmanta has the problem that you don't have always mana open for him.

A good friend has tested Troll Ascetic in the sideboard and was delighted. It is a bit costy but gets the job done and can chump block other Goyfs all day and regenerate.

My suggestion: Strangelroot Geist!

[Water_Wizard]

GG might be tough for Strangelroot.

The secret to the BUG Tempo match-up is mana denial. Their deck has a greedier mana base than RUG. Run your Stifles, run your Wastelands, run 6-7 burn spells / dismember, run Spell Snare, run at least 3 Submerge in the board.

Eliminate Deathrite on site. Go after their mana aggressively.

[catmint]

- Plaxmanta has the problem that you don't have always mana open for him.
....
A good friend has tested Troll Ascetic in the sideboard and was delighted. It is a bit costy but gets the job done and can chump block other Goyfs all day and regenerate.

My suggestion: Strangelroot Geist!

Leaving UG open is not the easiest, but the way I see it - ideally I want to have a Stifle/Pierce/Snare combination open protecting my delver anyway. You can also cast your second creature a turn later if you anticipate a revomal spell - risk is to loose tempo if they don't play the removal spell but the reward is also high. But even if I don't have UG open and PLaxmanta in my hand, you can use it for the next threat.

Geist sounds neat - can "trade" with a bolt against a goyf. GG is pretty awkward given that Geist is best early.
What i don't like about the Troll is the regenerate cost - 1G - too awkward to leave it open. The argument for Troll to block a goyf is narrow. You want to be attacking anway. Against BUG I would like Riverboa over both cards. Cheaper regenerate and hit for 2 despite their goyf. But such a narrow SB slot is not necessary to beat the deck imo.

[Water_Wizard]

Okay, so GU for Plaxmanta = cool, but 1G for Troll Ascetic = not cool. :/

[Vandalize]

Jesus, stop post those awful creatures. None of those are better than Tarmogoyf by any chance.

Strangleroot Geist is horrible, and Troll Ascetic is almost impossible to cast. Plaxmanta is fine as creature 13~14 from sideboard, you won't remove goyfs for it, unless you're an idiot.

Tarmogoyf is your largest beater, and by far the best P/T for it's mana. Nimble Mongoose isn't always threshed, and Delver dies easily, so you have to rely on Tarmogoyf to get the job done after your main beaters are dead or ineffective. Just because he dies to Abrupt Decay doesn't mean anything. If you're afraid of removal from BUG, just counter their cantrips.

It's okay to play three Tarmogoyfs, if you feel four is too much. But replacing this dude with awful creatures is just plain wrong.

[Demonic_Attorney]

After careful consideration and extensive recent review of this deck, its available alternative options and the present metagame, I am of the firm view that Canadian Threshold is still a very viable tier one deck after modifications from the generic form that the deck has taken in the recent calendar year.

I am old school and played this deck in fourty-two (42) sanctioned legacy tournaments in 2008 alone, therefore, I will refer to this deck as Canadian Threshold as oppose to “RUG Delver”. Plus I am from Canada (Ontario) where this deck originally evolved. I guess I am stubbornly old school!

Once Mental Misstep was banned (which I for one always thought was beneficial for this deck) this deck once again took off as a palpable tier one deck and dominated the format. Indeed, the results that this deck posted in the last two years is conspicuous and categorically speaks for its self.

As of late, quite ostensibly most Canadian Threshold players seem to be abandoning ship and casting this deck out as being merely tier two going forward and a deck that has seemingly run its course so to speak. In short, I for one vigorously disagree; however, I do agree that there does need to be some changes made both to the main deck and especially to the sideboard.

Most of you impugn, albeit, with premature haste the innovative inclusions to the sideboard being suggested such as Hidden Gibbons, Divert and Plaxmanta. I firmly believe this is an erroneous approach to undertake; especially considering that these foregoing card selections are in the form of sideboard tech. Indeed, it is trite to say that sideboard options and metagame choices in general are a fragile and sensitive issue to impugn and an objective and open mind is paramount in being able to correctly discern viability and effectiveness in the totality of the selected seventy-five as a whole.

Vandalize endorses Hidden Gibbons; I do too; however, is Hidden Herd not more viable for this particular deck as it is substantially harder to play around (especially in legacy)? I guess only a particular metagames and/ or play testing will determine that question…

Sasan impugns Divert for being “ situational”. Well, it is after all a sideboard card selection so obviously it is going to be there for situational and rather narrow occasions! Indeed, it "can" be categorized as “situational”; however, when there is a voluminous amount of complaints pertaining to Hymn to Tourach as it is currently being sported in BUG Delver right now, I cannot plausibly fathom how it could be fairly labeled as “not always works” especially when taken into account of its specific purpose. If it is being boarded in against the right cards and the appropriate and applicable decks than to the contrary, it can be very efficient and effective as play testing transparently indicates. Playing divert against Hymn and Decay, inter alia, while increasing the burn count from 6-8 for Shaman is a recipe for success against these two problematic cards presently being sported in the emerging BUG Delver decks that seem, on its face, to be problematic for Canadian Threshold to deal with at present.

Furthermore, I find it rather ironic that Sasan goes onto attacks Plaxmanta as “you not always have mana open for him” and then, lol, immediately thereafter goes onto suggest playing Troll Ascetic. Indeed, a UG creature is always much easier to cast than a 1GG creature in a three colour deck that in addition requires a whopping 1G to regenerate while the underlying deck only plays 18-19 land (many of which are fetch lands) and needs mana open for its counter-tempo play.

Indeed, efficient and effective sideboard tech that ambushes an unsuspecting opponent with unpleasant surprises wins long and competitive tournaments. Due to recent metagame changes to the increasingly competitive legacy format does call for Canadian Threshold to moderately modify its main deck and substantially modify its sideboard options that are, fortunately, readily available to it. Plausibly, what BUG Delver player expects a Canadian Threshold player to bring in from their board Divert, Plaxmanta and/ or Hidden Gibbons, for example? They’re all at the very least, if not effective then unexpected, creative and innovative and cannot be dismissed without reasonable competitive play testing. A sideboard is after all ad hoc.

Although far from a secret, Water Wizard is quite correct in his approach to Canadian Threshold neutralizing and in turn defeating BUG Delver. Aggressively utilizing Wasteland and Stifle, early and often, to disrupt and disable their mana base is indeed sound strategy; however, I disagree with him pertaining to Spell Snare being needed as it is definitely not necessary to ascertain victory in this particular matchup. Submerge is still very effective in this matchup as BUG Delver seems not to opt to play it in their sideboard. Submerge is absolutely unreal against Tombstalker and is the ultimate tempo advantage. Ask any BUG player that sports Tombstalker what is a bigger buzz kill than getting their freshly played Tombstalker Submerged? I also agree with Water Wizard that playing more burn than typically played by Canadian Threshold in the past is now necessary to deal with the the emerging popularity of Deathrite Shaman. Therefore, 7-8 of Lightning Bolt/ Chain Lighting is prudent stagey to kill their Deathrite Shaman early and often while of course concurrently attacking their mana base with a full play set of Wasteland and Stifle (this cannot be over emphasized in this particular matchup).

Lastly, I find myself now concurring with Mark Sun’s logic pertaining to the total Tarmogoyf count in this deck in relation to reducing the total main deck count from four to two (or perhaps three) as the appropriate number to play now due to the recent metgame change/ shift. The play style for Goyf in the context of Canadian Threshold now seems to be compellingly incumbent in the present competitive legacy format metagame. For ease of reference, please see the following reference of Mark Sun:

“It might just be personal preference, but I hate casting Tarmogoyf, for a couple of reasons. (1) Nimble Mongoose having Shroud shifts the equilibrium of spot removal to other things. While we can protect Delver early when both sides' resources are light, tapping out to play Tarmogoyf leaves us fairly exposed. That said... (2) I hate having to play this guy early. I find it very similar to last Standard where it was risky tapping out to play Geist on t3. Sure, you got your finisher, but you are also incredibly exposed. If you do tap out, you also turn off conditional things like Spell Snare, or Spell Pierce in my previous lists, which can be brutal. With only 18 lands, you can't afford to just hold it either. The great paradox 2 seems like the correct number for my playstyle.”

[Vandalize]

Well written, Demonic_Attorney.

Hidden Herd vs Hidden Gibbons is a weird choice. Hidden Herd is actually a Wild Nacatl in 95% of cases, but the face of Hidden Gibbons I actually like is that people are afraid to cast Instants against it. I never board out creatures for Hidden Gibbons, just permission (Daze or FoW). It's nice when they have the chance to Swords to Plowshares my Delver, but are afraid of a 4/4 Ape that's coming. This slot might be meta-game dependant. If you need to be aggressive, Hidden Herd is the card. However, against control decks and the mirror, I feel Hidden Gibbons has an edge.

By the way, this is my latest list:

Lands [18]
3 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta
2 Wooded Foothills
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland

Creatures [12]
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Tarmogoyf

Spells [30]
4 Force of Will
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Stifle
3 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
2 Chain Lightning

Sideboard [15]
3 Submerge
3 Pyroblast
2 Hidden Gibbons
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Pithing Needle
2 Rough//Tumble
1 Plaxmanta (testing out)

Maindeck permission seems fine so far. Double Daze hands felt really weird, and I haven't missed the fourth so far. Chain Lightning is terrible, but it's an necessary evil. It adds reach, and kills critters, but Forked Bolt is miles ahead against Maverick and Lingering Souls.

I might add 1 Sulfur Elemental to the board, if Lingering Souls start to pop up in every deck. Moreover, the only Miracles that are played in my metagame, are those with Entreat the Angels kill. No Rest in Peace or Energy Field maindeck, so I don't see 4 Spell Snares as necessary.

[Demonic_Attorney]

Well written, Demonic_Attorney.

Sideboard [15]
3 Submerge
3 Pyroblast
2 Hidden Gibbons
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Pithing Needle
2 Rough//Tumble
1 Plaxmanta (testing out)

For the most part Vandalize, I share your view on the board; however, I prefer Grip over Grudge as I want to be able to destroy those nasty enchantments (too many to name) and as well, be able to permanently and without question destroy (inherently) Batterskull.

I also prefer Sulfur Elemental over Needle as Mother, Thalia and Lingering Souls are some of this decks worst problems. Therefore, I want to be able to have efficient and effective neutralizers to negate those particular cards.

I am not entirely sold on Plaxmanta; however, if I were I think that a singleton would likely not suffice and at least two (2) would be needed in the board.

Also, at a risk of sounding incredibly anal, I prefer Red Elemental Blast over Pyroblast only because I have NM Beta's!

[Sasan]

What a great post demonic_attorney :-)

What is your current list?

[Vandalize]

For the most part Vandalize, I share your view on the board; however, I prefer Grip over Grudge as I want to be able to destroy those nasty enchantments (too many to name) and as well, be able to permanently and without question destroy (inherently) Batterskull.

I also prefer Sulfur Elemental over Needle as Mother, Thalia and Lingering Souls are some of this decks worst problems. Therefore, I want to be able to have efficient and effective neutralizers to negate those particular cards.

I am not entirely sold on Plaxmanta; however, if I were I think that a singleton would likely not suffice and at least two (2) would be needed in the board.

Also, at a risk of sounding incredibly anal, I prefer Red Elemental Blast over Pyroblast only because I have NM Beta's!

Actually, Pithing Needle's main target is Sensei's Divining Top.

[jimirynk]

Grim lavamancer beats deathrite..
Stop playing goose.
Bug only plays 4-5 removal just play 12-13 creatures.

Pyroblast is better than reb.

Nullrod beats top

play 6-7 removal

[Koby]

Nullrod beats top


And Needle beats Deed/DRS. Needle has more applications than Null Rod. Affinity isn't that prevalent, and with added removal it has a better game.

[jimirynk]

And Needle beats Deed/DRS. Needle has more applications than Null Rod. Affinity isn't that prevalent, and with added removal it has a better game.

I wouldnt board in needle vs bug. burn and spell pierce should be enough.

[Koby]

I wouldnt board in needle vs bug. burn and spell pierce should be enough.

Not BUG/TA, but some of the Nic Fit decks. It's a long shot either way.
Stopping all aspects of the UW deck (Top, Jace, SFM/Batterskull, Mishra's Factory) seems more relevant than just Tops and Affinity. Also against Maverick.

I still think Needle has more applications than Null Rod.

[jimirynk]

Needle will always have more applications.. It can name nonartifacts.
But null rod can shut off multiple cards at the same time vs uw; jitte,top, e.e, relic, batterskull, sofnf. Its like why ppl play jace belerin in sbs, it's another angle.

[Griselpuff]

Now might be a good time to revive Punishing Fire! It's a sweet recurring answer for BUG and all the other fair match-ups out there. Obviously, if you're playing vs. BUG, try to hold it and save it for their DRS (which is usually the first card they play anyways).

Here's my list:

// Lands
3 [B] Tropical Island
3 [B] Volcanic Island
3 [TE] Wasteland
1 [ON] Flooded Strand
1 [ON] Polluted Delta
3 [FUT] Grove of the Burnwillows
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills

// Creatures
4 [INN] Delver of Secrets
4 [OD] Nimble Mongoose
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf

// Spells
4 [CST] Brainstorm
4 [NE] Daze
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [M11] Lightning Bolt
4 [M10] Ponder
1 [ZEN] Spell Pierce
3 [ZEN] Punishing Fire
3 [SC] Stifle
1 [LG] Sylvan Library
2 [DIS] Spell Snare

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [NE] Submerge
SB: 1 [SC] Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 2 [COM] Flusterstorm
SB: 1 [10E] Pithing Needle
SB: 1 [MI] Cursed Totem
SB: 1 [B] Red Elemental Blast
SB: 1 [RAV] Life from the Loam
SB: 2 [PLC] Sulfur Elemental
SB: 2 [COM] Scavenging Ooze

[apistat_commander]

Went 3-0 at my local last night with the same list as last time. I played:

BUG Midrange (2-0) - He drew poorly and my Wastes were good, Goose was gold.
Miracleblade (2-1) - Goose got there for the two games I won.
BUG Midrange (2-1) - He seriously misplayed and I should not have won, but sometimes your opponents just aren't very good.

Despite beating BUG twice last night, it has been a huge problem for me in testing. They can answer our Tarmogoyfs but we can't answer theirs, Deathrite has to die on sight, and their Wastelands are better than ours. The format is so attrition based currently that RUG is in a much weaker spot. However it is pretty obvious that a slow, grindy format is ripe to be preyed on so I doubt that this state of affairs will last long.

Any thoughts on additional sideboard cards against BUG? Sylvan Library is the best thing I have found and Submerge is almost always good (unless they are on the extreme control end of the spectrum) but beyond that everything seems lackluster. I have thought of trying Price of Progress because they run so few counters. I have been on the fence about bringing in Pyroblast against them because it often does very little. Also there is so much variation in the builds that finding one specific weakness to attack can be a challenge.

[wcm8]

Any thoughts on additional sideboard cards against BUG?

Cards that can be problematic for BUG:
-Grim Lavamancer is a threat that can kill off Deathrites if they don't answer it quickly, and also provide some reach if the board gets stalled.
-Divert or Misdirection can redirect discard spells back at their owner, or swing an Abrupt Decay onto one of their own permanents.
-Sylvan Library and Ancestral Visions can provide you some long-term card advantage and are useful since these games will tend to go longer.
-Vendilion Clique doubles as a threat, disruption, and typically works as a Planeswalker-assassin.
-Plaxmanta counters removal and is also an instant-speed threat.
-Pithing Needle or Phyrexian Revoker can cut them off of planeswalkers or Shaman.
-Life from the Loam -- Wastelock is still a relevant angle of attack.

I think the approach should be to play like a pseudo-Zoo deck, dropping threat after threat. BUG mostly relies on one-for-one removal, and unlike UWx Miracles does not typically run sweeper spells. So if you brought in additional creatures to go along with the ones already in the maindeck, eventually you could get a threat down that they can't answer and you win that way. Maybe 2 Lavamancer, 1 Clique, 2 Plaxmanta would be a good start.

[apistat_commander]

Cards that can be problematic for BUG:
-Grim Lavamancer is a threat that can kill off Deathrites if they don't answer it quickly, and also provide some reach if the board gets stalled.
-Divert or Misdirection can redirect discard spells back at their owner, or swing an Abrupt Decay onto one of their own permanents.
-Sylvan Library and Ancestral Visions can provide you some long-term card advantage and are useful since these games will tend to go longer.
-Vendilion Clique doubles as a threat, disruption, and typically works as a Planeswalker-assassin.
-Plaxmanta counters removal and is also an instant-speed threat.
-Pithing Needle or Phyrexian Revoker can cut them off of planeswalkers or Shaman.
-Life from the Loam -- Wastelock is still a relevant angle of attack.

I think the approach should be to play like a pseudo-Zoo deck, dropping threat after threat. BUG mostly relies on one-for-one removal, and unlike UWx Miracles does not typically run sweeper spells. So if you brought in additional creatures to go along with the ones already in the maindeck, eventually you could get a threat down that they can't answer and you win that way. Maybe 2 Lavamancer, 1 Clique, 2 Plaxmanta would be a good start.

The key here is that RUG needs flexible answers because there are too many tough MUs to dedicate your SB entirely to one archetype. Out of your list the only things that I really object to are Divert, Misdirection, and Plaxmanta. Both Divert and Misdirection are "best case scenario" kind of cards that can lead to blowouts if your opponent has the mana or counters your Misdirection. Plaxmanta is just too narrow.

I could see something like:

4 Submerge
2 Pyroblast/REB
2 Grim Lavamancer
1 Vendilion Clique
1-2 Sylvan Library
1 Life from the Loam
2 Krosan Grip/Ancient Grudge
1-2 Flex Slots

I think 2 Sylvan Library is probably the correct number given how good they are against other blue decks and because they help you dig for your singletons. This board addresses BUG/Miracles/Stoneblade and random aggro pretty well, but it loses to GY strategies and is soft to combo (can't have everything).

Edit: Now that I think about it, I am little less sure about the Grim Lavamancers. There are pretty mana intensive and it isn't super hard for BUG to waste you off red. They also have poor synergy with Mongoose which is your best threat in the MU (at least before an opposing Tarmogoyf resolves). However they will probably kill everything they can on sight and a ton of stuff hits the yard in this MU so it might not be the worst.

[Ziveeman]

Placed 46th at GP: Denver today.

Decklist:

4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf
1 Grim Lavamancer

4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Stifle
3 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
2 Forked Bolt

4 Wooded Foothills
3 Polluted Delta
4 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
4 Wasteland

Sideboard:
4 Submerge
2 Pyroblast
2 Rough // Tumble
2 Krosan Grip
1 Envelop
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Vendilion Clique
1 Spell Snare
1 Sulfur Elemental

Rounds 1-3: Byes (won a grinder Friday night)
Round 4 - BUG (Dark Confidant, Lilianas)- 1-2
Round 5 - TES - 1-2
Round 6 - SneakShow - 2-1
Round 7 - BUG (Dark Confidant) - 2-1
Round 8 - BUG Delver - 2-0
Round 9 - RUG Delver - 2-1
Round 10 - BUG (Dark Confidant) - 2-0
Round 11 - Esper Stoneblade - 0-2
Round 12 - Death and Taxes - 2-1
Round 13 - SneakShow - 0-2
Round 14 - Burn - 2-0

[Mark Sun]

Congrats on the finish, Jason.

I went SCG Columbus this weekend and played the list I suggested a couple of pages back with the following sideboard:

3 Submerge
2 Rough/Tumble
2 Sulfur Elemental
2 REB
1 Pyroblast
2 Spell Pierce
1 Envelop
1 Grim Lavamancer
1 Krosan Grip

The Grim Lavamancer was experimental, otherwise everything was pretty straightforward. Played 4 Stifle, 4 Snare, no Pierce in the maindeck, but should have hedged better against combo, so my tunnel vision punished me against what I thought a package of 6 1cc counters would help against. It didn't. Finished 6-3 in what was an incredibly disappointing weekend with two mediocre finishes and 7 rounds total played against friends (knocking them out each time).

Matchups were:
R1 L Omni Tell 0-2
R2 W Pox 2-1
R3 W UR Delver 2-1
R4 W Maverick, conley1000000 2-0
R5 W ANT, Arew 2-1
R6 W Burn 2-0
R7 L Omni Tell 0-2
R8 L ANT 0-2
R9 W Walking Dead 2-0

Main issues against Omni Tell were what originally playing Sylvan Library in the maindeck and Flusterstorm in the sideboard solved: redundant copies of Show and Tell and losing the counterwar. Game ones I would have to get lucky to survive, but that was not the case for either round. I could go on all day about bad beats, but the truth is my 75 wasn't equipped to consistently beat combo.

I have some ideas going forward but I haven't seen the cards I want to play perform outside of their niches, so we'll see.

[wcm8]

Main issues against Omni Tell were what originally playing Sylvan Library in the maindeck and Flusterstorm in the sideboard solved: redundant copies of Show and Tell and losing the counterwar.

Sylvan Library was the card that saved my ass against my Show and Tell opponent. I ended two of the games at 3 life, having paid between 12-16 to draw extra cards. I def wouldn't want to cut Library.

Did you get a chance to check out Saito's top 16 RUG list from GP Denver? It looked pretty solid and had a mix of Pierce and Snare that seems good going forward. He also ran 2 Thoughtscour, which might be worth it to help keep Mongoose robust in a format full of Shaman.

Also, I don't really agree with you regarding Chain Lightning over Forked Bolt. Yes, the difference is moot against Shamans, but with combo Elves and Esper Blade on the rise I think you'd really want the utility. And I have always found that in many games, Forked bolt actually does more damage since you can ping the opponent as well as kill their creature.

Either way, Delver and Daze don't seem particularly exciting if more people jump on the midrange train. Jund and other cascade variants give tempo decks headaches with all that card advantage.

[Ziveeman]

Thanks Mark :D

I think that Spell Snare is pretty well positioned, but I don't know if it warrants 3 or 4 MD. Spell Pierce just offers far more versatility in the matchups where you want a counterspell. I included the Spell Snare in the SB because it definitely is a very good card right now, but yeah, Show and Tell is a miserable matchup when you have Spell Snares in the deck :/

@wcm8: Thought Scour is pretty good against Deathrite. I tested it for a little bit and sure, Deathrites will ding you for 2 damage or whatever (they're gonna do it with or without Thought Scour anyway), but Thought Scour insures threshold for Mongoose and makes Deathrite far worse since they can't block Mongoose profitably. I wanted to find a way to put Thought Scours into my deck for Denver but wasn't really willing to give up anything in my decklist.

[Sasan]

Mark as I followed your twitter account and your comments here about your losses vs Omni Tell I think that it was also a bit unlucky. Your list is not bad vs combo. Perhaps you can replace one Spell Pierce and one Envelop in the SB with 2 Flusterstorms - but heads up, your list is really solid and good.

One Question: Did Grim Lavamancer shine or was the anti-synergy with Nimble Mongoose distracting?

[JDK]

Mark as I followed your twitter account and your comments here about your losses vs Omni Tell I think that it was also a bit unlucky. Your list is not bad vs combo. Perhaps you can replace one Spell Pierce and one Envelop in the SB with 2 Flusterstorms - but heads up, your list is really solid and good.

One Question: Did Grim Lavamancer shine or was the anti-synergy with Nimble Mongoose distracting?
You can stop sucking up to him, he admitted 4 Snare isn't good against Omnitell/combo. :laugh:

[Mark Sun]

Mark as I followed your twitter account and your comments here about your losses vs Omni Tell I think that it was also a bit unlucky. Your list is not bad vs combo. Perhaps you can replace one Spell Pierce and one Envelop in the SB with 2 Flusterstorms - but heads up, your list is really solid and good.

One Question: Did Grim Lavamancer shine or was the anti-synergy with Nimble Mongoose distracting?

Flusterstorm will probably make another appearance in the sideboard. Some of the games I lost were mulligans where I'd board in 6 1cc counters and open a hand with 4 lands, Goyf, Bolt, Mongoose, and so forth.

I drew Lavamancer only once against Walking Dead, so it's hard to comment on. It was definitely powerful enough that I couldn't lose once it resolved and/or was protected. I have always disliked Thought Scour but if I play both Lavamancer/Mongoose then Scour will have to be in the deck to support them. With Elves just winning, Lavamancer is pretty good with a pile of x/2's in their deck.

I have a smaller tournament this weekend, perhaps I'll try some off-the-wall ideas to see where this list could stretch.

[Isre Morn]

I have a smaller tournament this weekend, perhaps I'll try some off-the-wall ideas to see where this list could stretch.
I'm curious about your gained experience.

[Sasan]

RUG made 4 Top 16 appearances in the SCG Open San Diego and BUG was not even represented on the final tables. Furthermore RUG won vs Jund in the semi finals. So we can see that Canadian is still a really great deck and perhaps still the best in the format.

Grim Lavamancers are everywhere in the lists now. This is a bit surprising as Nimble is harmed by that.

[wcm8]

RUG made 4 Top 16 appearances in the SCG Open San Diego and BUG was not even represented on the final tables. Furthermore RUG won vs Jund in the semi finals. So we can see that Canadian ******** is still a really great deck and perhaps still the best in the format.

Grim Lavamancers are everywhere in the lists now. This is a bit surprising as Nimble is harmed by that.

Grim Lavamancer is actually pretty great against Jund. It kills Deathrite, Bob, opposing Lavamancers, BBE, (sometimes early on) Goyf, and provides a buffer against Liliana edict effects as well as the potential to kill her as well. It's a -must answer- card for a lot of decks, which if unanswered provides a ton of utility. And if it does get killed, well at least they spent the removal on Lavamancer instead of on a Delver or Goyf. I agree that it is pretty non-bo with Goose, but the power of a turn 1 Lavaman shouldn't be understated.

This past weeked I played Shardless BUG at a local tournament and wrecked face in the Swiss. However, my first round opponent in the Top 8 was on RUG and just wrecked me with Divert. This card is realllllllllllllly good against Abrupt Decay, Hymn to Tourach, and Ancestral Visions. He had some pretty lucky hands otherwise, but Divert was definitely the card that lost me the match. If you're slinging RUG and thing BUG decks may be present, definitely consider Divert.

[Mark Sun]

I'm curious about your gained experience.

Was actually going to attend the same tournament as wcm8, but had a last minute trip to GP Atlantic City.

I was thinking on the car ride, however, what is an optimal way to balance: (1) Mongoose Threshold, (2) Lavamancer Activations, (3) Opposing Deathrite Shamans? That is still a puzzle to me, for the most part.

[ImpinAintEasy]

I'm still confused what all the fuss is about with nimble and grim interactions. Goose is great where we want him to be great (miracles) and grim is great where we want him to be great (BUG) and these cards are bad when we expect them to be bad. I'm in the camp that goyf is currently the worst card in the deck. I watched several rug players tap out for goyf, only to lose on their next turn with snare/pierce in hand. Seems to me that we cut the 4th goyf, put in a grim, run 7 burn and be done with the discussion. Did anyone see that rug player absolutely wreck bug by attacking their mana base? Seems to me we need to be more focused on that aspect than this one.

On another boggling note, I still don't see why so many people still run scavenging ooze. Just me I guess.

Meh maybe i'm missing something, but I'm in the camp with Mark, goyf is the worst card here, stop kidding ourselves and adapt!

[Isre Morn]

To the latest SCG Open results for RUG Tempo: Love to hear that!

It's kinda interesting Kurt Samson ran 2 Copies of Izzet Charm in the main - always a card in crossfire, but it is definately a bit of all right like Divert and Ooze do in certain situations.

Completely agree what was said about Lavamancer and (the) Goyf(count).

So far I feel pretty good with 1 Lavamancer, 1 Forked Bolt, 1 Dismember, 4 Bolt, 1 Snapcaster, 2 Thought Scour Main.

Quite thrilling these days in Legacy corner :)

[Mark Sun]

On another boggling note, I still don't see why so many people still run scavenging ooze. Just me I guess.

Ooze does have the added bonus of fighting opposing Deathrite Shamans, as realistic or unrealistic as it seems to reach that scenario.

The plan of both Mongoose/Lavamancer pre-board into boarding either one out post-board is actually an elegant solution. I may return to Thought Scour to support either half of that plan.

[Pherion]

It looks like a lot of the discussion here is trending towards how to deal with decks that generate both virtual and real card advantage where we can't really do either all that effectively. RUG starts with 7 cards, and doesn't every really draw up from there. So what we need are methods of 2 for 1ing the opponent, or generating recurring effects. The easiest place to look for this is in removal:

2 for 1
In general our best two for one slot is Forked Bolt. It kills two x/1s, or a Deathrite Shaman outright. The card does not recur, but generates virtual card advantage by removing two of our opponents cards for only one of ours. In addition, it's very efficient at one red mana.

Recurring Effects
First up here we have Grim Lavamancer, who obviously does not share synergy with our golden Nimble Mongoose. The lavamancer is slower than Forked Bolt, but it has the added benefit of being able to activate multiple times. This again gives us virtual card advantage. Lavamancer can also kill just about every threat we worry about, and it wins Tarmogoyf wars flat out.

Next up we have Punishing Fire and Grove of the Burnwillows. This card interaction has been around for a bit, and has come in and out of favor in RUG. I personally have never really liked it, but I'm considering it now because it's more has more synergy with Nimble Mogoose than Lavamancer. It also doesn't have to wait a turn before it can do damage. On the down side, it costs two mana to cast, which is a hefty amount for RUG, and I think the mana base might need to be expanded up a bit from the standard 18 to support this.

Those are the options I'm considering for the moment, and I think they are all good options. My current list contains Lavamancers, and I'll be testing it at the local this Wednesday. For the Tarmogoyf vs Mongoose argument, I'm leaning towards removing a single Goyf to help support Lavamancer. We'll see how it goes.

Lands
3 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
2 Wooded Foothills
2 Scalding Tarn
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Flooded Strand
4 Wasteland

Creatures
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf
2 Grim Lavamancer

Control
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
3 Stifle
2 Spell Snare
2 Spell Pierce

Cantrips
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
1 Thought Scour

Removal
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember

Sideboard
1 Sylvan Library
1 Grim Lavamancer
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Pyroblast
1 Spell Pierce
3 Submerge
3 Surgical Extraction
2 Rough // Tumble

The only thing that really concerns me at the moment are the Rough // Tumble in the board, as they don't play well with Lavamancer. I might swap them for two Forked Bolts for Wednesday, but we'll see!

[Einherjer]

I think you might be missing the point. It has never been Thresholds goal to achieve some sort of cardadvantage, for example via Punishing Fire. It is simply the wrong deck for such a goal, decks like Jund or BUG manage to do this fairly well, but hey, that's their purpose. Canadian on the other side has mostly been producing virtual cardadvantage aka accumulating dead cards on the opposing hand. Trading 1 for 2 has always been nice, but it was never a goal. Though I agree on Lavamancer to be rather good at the time being.

Another point I want to discuss is the following. We have to face more big creatures than ever before. Tarmogoyf, once a "RUG-only-card" sees play in various archetypes, Tombstalker is being played again, too and there are still a few Knights around. All this creatures can't be Bolted, under normal circumstances. So, the logical conclusion is to play "better" removal, which led me to playing 2 Dismembers in the Mainboard and a full set of Submerges in the side. How do you feel about this topic?

Greetings

[Demonic_Attorney]

Lands
3 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
2 Wooded Foothills
2 Scalding Tarn
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Flooded Strand
4 Wasteland

Creatures
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf
2 Grim Lavamancer

Control
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
3 Stifle
2 Spell Snare
2 Spell Pierce

Cantrips
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
1 Thought Scour

Removal
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember

Sideboard
1 Sylvan Library
1 Grim Lavamancer
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Pyroblast
1 Spell Pierce
3 Submerge
3 Surgical Extraction
2 Rough // Tumble

The only thing that really concerns me at the moment are the Rough // Tumble in the board, as they don't play well with Lavamancer. I might swap them for two Forked Bolts for Wednesday, but we'll see!

When will you and others realize the palpable fact that Nimble Mongoose and Grim Lavamancer do not belong in the same maindeck?

Is there any other two cards that lack sooooooooo much synergy??????

I can't think of a better way to undermine yourself!

[Pherion]

I think you might be missing the point. It has never been Thresholds goal to achieve some sort of cardadvantage, for example via Punishing Fire. It is simply the wrong deck for such a goal, decks like Jund or BUG manage to do this fairly well, but hey, that's their purpose. Canadian on the other side has mostly been producing virtual cardadvantage aka accumulating dead cards on the opposing hand. Trading 1 for 2 has always been nice, but it was never a goal. Though I agree on Lavamancer to be rather good at the time being.

Another point I want to discuss is the following. We have to face more big creatures than ever before. Tarmogoyf, once a "RUG-only-card" sees play in various archetypes, Tombstalker is being played again, too and there are still a few Knights around. All this creatures can't be Bolted, under normal circumstances. So, the logical conclusion is to play "better" removal, which led me to playing 2 Dismembers in the Mainboard and a full set of Submerges in the side. How do you feel about this topic?

Greetings

You're quite right that RUG's primary goal is to attack the mana base, and to prevent the opponent from being able to play larger spells, or to efficiently counter them when they finally do get played. Our best game is in the first few turns, and usually the winner is decided there. However, if the opponent knows we are on RUG, plays around Stifle and Wasteland - then our mana denial plan is out the window, and we need other options to win a mid to long game. This is when our inability to generate any real card advantage starts to hurt us. So the Grim Lavamancer/Grove of the Burnwillows plan's are only for a metta where we expect our opponents to be able to play around our primary plan.

On Dismember and Submerge, I agree here as well. I only run one Dismember in the main, and three Submerge in the side, but I can certainly see arguments for you're numbers. For me two Dismembers feels very painful as in many matches they can end up killing us. So I'll stick to one for now :)

When will you and others realize the palpable fact that Nimble Mongoose and Grim Lavamancer do not belong in the same maindeck?

Is there any other two cards that lack sooooooooo much synergy??????

I can't think of a better way to undermine yourself!

Have you play tested the combination? If so I'd be happy to see you're results. I'm planning to keep track of how they interact and see if it is feasable over the long run. From what I can see however: In most matches you'll want either Nimble Mongoose or Grim Lavamancer. For instance in a combo match-up Lavamancer is too slow and you want a beefed Mongoose ASAP to attack their life total before they can kill you. Whereas against something like Goblins you're probably going to want the consistent removal of a Lavamancer. You could argue that a thresholded mongoose could block and achieve this goal as well, until you play an experienced Goblin player. In general you're mongoose will sit there while they build up their forces until they are lethal even if you do block. The Lavamancer on the other hand can take out key components to their swarm even if they aren't attacking you.

There are cases where it will be difficult to decide which is more important. For instance against Esper Blade the Mongoose is fantastic because it avoid Swords to Plowshares, but the Lavamancer is also good because it helps deal with Lingering Souls and kills Stoneforge Mystic.

I'm looking forward to testing the combonation either way, and I'll let you know if the Lavamancer ever seems awkward with Mongoose.

[wcm8]

I think some number of Thought Scour could facilitate playing both creatures. You could also run Life from the Loam(s) instead of or in addition to Thought Scour(s) -- besides being a great card on its own, dredging will also help fill your graveyard.

[Dyvith]

I'll be streaming the Legacy daily @ 5:30 today playing RUG.

http://www.twitch.tv/Dyvith

If you wanna watch, I'll see y'all then.

[jin]

You're quite right that RUG's primary goal is to attack the mana base, and to prevent the opponent from being able to play larger spells, or to efficiently counter them when they finally do get played. Our best game is in the first few turns, and usually the winner is decided there. However, if the opponent knows we are on RUG, plays around Stifle and Wasteland - then our mana denial plan is out the window, and we need other options to win a mid to long game. This is when our inability to generate any real card advantage starts to hurt us. So the Grim Lavamancer/Grove of the Burnwillows plan's are only for a metta where we expect our opponents to be able to play around our primary plan.

On Dismember and Submerge, I agree here as well. I only run one Dismember in the main, and three Submerge in the side, but I can certainly see arguments for you're numbers. For me two Dismembers feels very painful as in many matches they can end up killing us. So I'll stick to one for now :)



Nimble Mongoose as a 3/3 already gives us a lot of virtual card advantage in that it blanks their removal. With more inclusion of weenies, it'll make enemy removal and mirror match Fork Bolts that much harder to deal with. You are also down a Tarmogoyf which is Tempo Thresh's biggest problem.

I think you are wrong about Wasteland/Stifle being an issue against decks that play "around" this package. If they play around this, the job of the package is done and they are already slowed. Stifle has other applications besides targeting fetch lands and extra mana has never hurt Tempo Thresh.

Regarding the Submerge/Dismember package, I tend to run 1x Dismember maindeck for the Tarmogoyf battles. I only run 2 submerge as submerge tends to be bad in multiples especially when your opponent plays black and discard. I like boarding it Sulfuric Vortex against these green decks for extra reach. It seems to be ok.

If they do play around your Stifle/Wasteland package (and you find it annoying), you can also board out the Stifles where you see fit. The threat of having Stifle but not actually having it will make them slower without you actually having the card. That alone is worth playing Stifle. Looking at your list, I can tell that you are a Tempo Thresh player that doesn't really enjoy the fundamentals of the Stifle/Wasteland game. You tend to rely more on the removal and countermagic. That's a way to play it, but I find that having the full set of Stifle/Wasteland is the only way to instil fear in the opponent's eyes. Arguably, you can say that you can bluff the Wasteland just because you are playing Tempo Thresh, but not everyone is going to be a good enough player to play around Stifle/Wasteland. When that time comes, you'll really be wishing you had those Stifles.

[Korvo]

I'm really thinking about adding two Chain Lightnings instead of two Forked Bolts. Think thats at the moment the better removal spell.

Here is my list:

Creatures [12]
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf

Instants [23]
2 Spell Snare
2 Thought Scour
3 Spell Pierce
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Lightning Bolt



Sorceries [6]
2 Chain Lightning
4 Ponder

Lands [18]
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland

SB
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Rough/Tumble
1 Life from the Loam
2 Pyroblast
2 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Submerge
3 Surgical Extraction

Eventually cutting 1 Tarmogoyf to add 1 Snappy to be a little more flexible and cutting 1 Grudge to add 1 Grip. SB is also not final.

What do you think?

[Einherjer]

I think that neither Chain Lightning nor Forked Bolt is good nowadays. First of all, both are sorceries. I think that's enough of a point and does not need any further clarification. Secondly I think that the meta nowadays warrants Stifle. I've been done alot of testing BUG vs RUG, though mostly from the BUG-side, but I can say for sure, that Stifle is one of the scarier cards. Your primary goal should be to manascrew BUG as soon as possible while shooting their Shamans (at instant speed). Therefore I can't think of a reason to cut Stifle.. it saves your creatures asses from Liliana's activations too later in the game...
As for additional removal, I can only repeat what I said in my last point, it is a necessity to be able to nuke an opposing Tarmogoyf (at instant speed). Therefore I advocate 1-2 Dismember. In addition to being a great Goyfkiller they also act as a pseudoremoval against Batterskull preboard, granting you one or two more turns to end the game. Cutting the 4th Tarmogoyf is okay, though adding Snapcaster Mage does not sound good. I've never been a friend of cc3 cards that do not win the game (unlike Elemental/Vortex/Grip, as they win the game pretty often). Most of the time Snapcaster Mage is a 3 mana Lightning Bolt... I'd advocate playing a 9th cantrip in this slot, wether being Thought Scour, Sylvan Library or even Preordain.

Greetings

[Korvo]

Hm... i could cut 1 Forked Bolt for a Dismember. And add 1 Forked Bolt in SB. Think thats ok. I also think of cutting 1 Goyf to add 1 Sylvan Library. (i really like that card)

OR cut the Forked Bolt for Fire//Ice?!

Any more suggesions to my sideboard?

[alekill]

I would never cut the fourth tarmogoyf you will lose a lot more games in the threshold mirror and team america match ups, where essentially the whole game comes down to who gets more tarmogoyfs, then you will win with cute little snapcaster tricks. Snapcaster is pretty terrible in this deck where the only thing it can really do is be a three mana lightning bolt or a 3 mana spell pierce at which point they should be able to pay for the spell pierce anyways.

The problem thresh is seeing right now is that there is a lot a super fair midrange lame ass GBx decks being played and that has never been where the deck has excelled. The only reason these decks can exist is deathrite shaman. All of the GBx mana basses being played right now are terrible and deathrite is the only reason they work. This shows a pretty clear weak point in the GBx decks. As the best resource denial deck in magic besides vintage MUD I think we should be sticking to that instead of playing fair cards that can't compare to their fair cards. With this said I think if you're not playing four stifle and four wasteland you're saying that you just don't want to win. If you keep saying that you're losing to bloodbraid elf I think you're wrong you're losing to them taking over the game to the point that they've reached four mana, reaching four mana against us shouldn't be possible unless we have them at 3. In the end we should be trying to find unfair cards to deal with their fair cards, examples of this are submerge and divert (http://magiccards.info/od/en/82.html). Plaxmanta (http://magiccards.info/query?q=plaxmanta&v=card&s=cname) is cute but all it does is answer abrupt decay, our answers need to be diverse and devastating not narrow and 'ok'.

[jin]

I think that neither Chain Lightning nor Forked Bolt is good nowadays. First of all, both are sorceries. I think that's enough of a point and does not need any further clarification. Secondly I think that the meta nowadays warrants Stifle. I've been done alot of testing BUG vs RUG, though mostly from the BUG-side, but I can say for sure, that Stifle is one of the scarier cards. Your primary goal should be to manascrew BUG as soon as possible while shooting their Shamans (at instant speed). Therefore I can't think of a reason to cut Stifle.. it saves your creatures asses from Liliana's activations too later in the game...
As for additional removal, I can only repeat what I said in my last point, it is a necessity to be able to nuke an opposing Tarmogoyf (at instant speed). Therefore I advocate 1-2 Dismember. In addition to being a great Goyfkiller they also act as a pseudoremoval against Batterskull preboard, granting you one or two more turns to end the game. Cutting the 4th Tarmogoyf is okay, though adding Snapcaster Mage does not sound good. I've never been a friend of cc3 cards that do not win the game (like Elemental/Vortex/Grip). Most of the time Snapcaster Mage is a 3 mana Lightning Bolt... I'd advocate playing a 9th cantrip in this slot, wether being Thought Scour, Sylvan Library or even Preordain.

Greetings

There are two things that I don't agree with you on in your post. Firstly, I think sorcery speed is not a big problem considering 8 of the 12 threats in this deck are 1-drops. Sorcery speed also helps build up Tarmogoyf which is great since the previous lists only had Ponder to make the goyf a 4/5 which seems rather weak (previous as is Fire/Ice era). I think both Chain Lightning and Fork Bolt have value, but I think that Fork Bolt has a bit more versatility. By being able to split the damage, you do not waste any of the damage from the R. I think with the Chain Lightning, many players would just be tempted to burn face. Chain Lightning is also bad against decks that play R. With the ramp of Jund, I wouldn't be surprised if people started to lose their Insectile Apparitions to their own Chain Lightnings.

I would advocate the Dismember in conjunction with the burn as burn gives you the reach necessary to win most games.

I also disagree with you regarding your comment about Sulfur Elemental and Sulfuric Vortex as both of those spells more often than not spell disaster for the opponent. Elemental being a one sided Wrath of God against white weenies and, Sulfuric Vortex, giving you the reach necessary to beat control decks.

[Einherjer]

I also disagree with you regarding your comment about Sulfur Elemental and Sulfuric Vortex as both of those spells more often than not spell disaster for the opponent. Elemental being a one sided Wrath of God against white weenies and, Sulfuric Vortex, giving you the reach necessary to beat control decks.

What did I type there? I am sorry. I was trying to say UNlike those 3, as they can win games in a heartbeat. So I agree with you :D

I really dislike having any sorceryspells in RUG, but this may just be a question of playstyle?

Greetings

[Korvo]

I came to the conclusion to try this list:

Creatures [12]
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf

Instants [26]
1 Dismember
1 Fire//Ice
2 Thought Scour
2 Spell Pierce
4 Stifle
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Lightning Bolt



Sorceries [4]
4 Ponder

Lands [18]
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland

SB [15]
1 Forked Bolt
1 Spell Snare
1 Spell Pierce
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Rough/Tumble
2 Pyroblast
3 Submerge
3 Surgical Extraction

Dismember could really getting usefull against Tombstalker/Goyfs. Fire//Ice is also good cause its an instant and more flexible. Always liked it more than Forked Bolt. I also like the 2 Thought Scour cause they can be very usefull when used wise. (Cantrip, Thought Scour to get rid of cards you dont need AND lets grow your Goyf and Mongoose OR use it on the opponent to ruin their game plan when using for examble Top or Sylvan Library)
I also think the SB looks great. More counters and more removal spells. I think we need Rough//Tumble. (Elven are getting more this times and Goblins are always present)

Any inputs?

[dune2k]

Any inputs?

You are only running 59 cards.
Aside from that: why no stifles?

[Korvo]

Sorry wrong numbers! ^^

Its now correct!

[Einherjer]

Any inputs?

1) I wouldn't consider Forked Bolt to be an sideboard card. What cards do you bring it in against? I am sure Sulfur Elemental is alot more effective, if brought in postboard.
2) Thought Scour is nice. But being forced to play without any Spell Snares is not. It just has too many broad applications nowadays. I think I don't need to write them down, right?
3) Spell is great, as said above, but I wouldn't consider it a sideboard card either, maybe im just too narrow-minded about this point, but I think this card belongs to the mainboard.
4) I've pretty much enjoyed dropping the graveyardhate, enableling me to concentrate on other tough MUs - Jund comes to my mind. Cutting the 3 Surgicals would make space for the 4th Submerge, a Mind Harness and a Krosan Grip, for example.

Greetings

[jin]

What did I type there? I am sorry. I was trying to say UNlike those 3, as they can win games in a heartbeat. So I agree with you :D

I really dislike having any sorceryspells in RUG, but this may just be a question of playstyle?

Greetings

Ah, that makes much more sense. Thank you. I think your statement about that was just a little ambiguous and I took it the other way. It is much clearer now.



Any inputs?

What's your reasoning behind running 2 Thoughtscour? It's not really a card you want to see 2-of in your hand at any point. Tempo Thresh as a deck is very capable of getting to threshold with all of the fetchlands and cantrips. I would consider cutting the extra one. What you put in there depends on your play style, whether you like countermagic/removal/threat or cantrip...

Regarding your side board, in what match up does the Fork Bolt get brought it?

Same question for Surgical Extraction.

[Sasan]

Hey I need your help guys.

How do you board against Jund and BUG Delver?

This is my list:

Deck: Canadian
Counts : 60 main / 15 sideboard

Creatures:11
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf

Spells:31
4 Brainstorm
2 Forked Bolt
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Ponder
1 Spell Pierce
3 Spell Snare
4 Stifle
4 Daze
1 Izzet Charm
4 Force of Will

Lands:18
1 Flooded Strand
1 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
4 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland
4 Wooded Foothills

Sideboard:15
2 Divert
2 Flusterstorm
1 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
2 Spell Pierce
1 Ancient Grudge
2 Rough // Tumble
1 Krosan Grip
3 Submerge

MD has 7 burn spells. I am currently thinking about switching one Forked Bolt to one Dismember. But that is another story.


This is my boarding idea vs Jund:

OTP: -4 Force - 2 Forked Bolt - 1 Izzet Charm + 3 Submerge + 2 Divert + 2 Rough
OTD: -4 Daze - 4 Force - 1 Forked Bolt + 3 Submerge + 2 Divert + 2 Rough + 2 Pierce

Forces are bad in this MU as Jund relies heavily on discard. So we cannot afford more card losses. Boarding out Forked Bolt seems odd, but we board in tons of good removal and post board FB is clearly inferior to Rough/Tumble.
Divert is big in this MU. It can redirect their discard spells, their bolts and their decays - so nearly everything.

This is my boarding idea vs BUG Delver - Tempo Version without Bob:

OTP: - 4 Force - 1 Pierce + 3 Submerge + 2 Divert
OTD: - 4 Daze - 2 FoW + 3 Submerge + 2 Divert + 1 Flusterstorm

In this MU Rough is not good as you can only hit Shaman. Forces are also a little bad, so I take 2 out even on the Draw.

Now let us talk about BUG Midrange - the one with Bobs, Lili and so on:

OTP: - 4 Force - 1 Izzet - 2 Forked Bolt + 3 Submerge + 2 Divert + 2 Rough
OTD: - 4 Daze - 2 Force - 2 Forked Bolt + 3 Submerge + 2 Divert + 2 Rough + 1 Pierce

Now Rough can hit many tagets and is a must-include.


I would really appreciate if some forum users can advice me conerning if the boarding plans are ok :)

[alekill]

I don't understand why you are boarding out removal for jund when that is essentially all we want to see. Take out forces dazes and your spell pierce.

[Sasan]

but without Counters (without dazes, FoW and pierce you only have snare) you can do nothing vs lili. That is the problem.

[Goddik]

Here is why your removal needs to be instant speed.

Your opponent is on the play and drops deathrite shaman.

You play volcanic island and say go: This is what should be on your opponents mind assuming he is good.
1. I can't fetch because he has stifle open
2. I can't play liliana because he will daze it (and then bolt the deathrite)
3. I can't play confidant or goyf because he will spell snare those

Lets assume you chain lightninged the deathrite. Now he has a much greater span of options to chose from without the risk of running into your reactive cards beyond daze. The result is that you end up in awkward situations where you can't match your dazes and snares to their threaths and end up having to force stuff. This btw is also a common play against maverick in which bolting the t1 hierarch in your own turn otd is usually not the right play

The power of canadian threshold lies in its ability to force your opponent to run into your "soft" reactive cards by operating more efficiently (cramming more options and actions into the same turns) then your opponent. By running unnecessary sorceries you diminish that. When deathrite shaman forces more interaction into t1-t2 it becomes even more important to play instant speed removal

[Goddik]

Wanting to play grove of the burnwillows and 4 tarmogoyfs is a product of playing the deck wrongly. Grove will loose you tons of games because it doesnt make blue mana, and tarmogoyf is not the best card in the mirror (if both players play stifle). I have noticed several good european canadian thresh players force mongoose on sight in the mirror whereas tarmogoyfs rarely get to resolve without a significant ammount of maneuvring. This of course changes when players don't run stifle or don't know how to play with and around it.

Stifle is good against good players because they play around it. Stifle is good against bad players because they run into it. It serves different roles but is good in both scenarios.

[Isre Morn]

Here is why your removal needs to be instant speed.

Your opponent is on the play and drops deathrite shaman.

You play volcanic island and say go: This is what should be on your opponents mind assuming he is good.
1. I can't fetch because he has stifle open
2. I can't play liliana because he will daze it (and then bolt the deathrite)
3. I can't play confidant or goyf because he will spell snare those

Lets assume you chain lightninged the deathrite. Now he has a much greater span of options to chose from without the risk of running into your reactive cards beyond daze. The result is that you end up in awkward situations where you can't match your dazes and snares to their threaths and end up having to force stuff. This btw is also a common play against maverick in which bolting the t1 hierarch in your own turn otd is usually not the right play

The power of canadian threshold lies in its ability to force your opponent to run into your "soft" reactive cards by operating more efficiently (cramming more options and actions into the same turns) then your opponent. By running unnecessary sorceries you diminish that. When deathrite shaman forces more interaction into t1-t2 it becomes even more important to play instant speed removal

So what instant removals would you run beside the lightning bolts, dismember and the submerges postboard? shock or fire // ice instead of the forked bolts?

[Sasan]

or perhaps Izzet Charm I think.

No more advice on my boarding question?

[Shriekmaw]

This is my list:

Deck: Canadian
Counts : 60 main / 15 sideboard

Creatures:11
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf

Spells:31
4 Brainstorm
2 Forked Bolt
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Ponder
1 Spell Pierce
3 Spell Snare
4 Stifle
4 Daze
1 Izzet Charm
4 Force of Will

Lands:18
1 Flooded Strand
1 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
4 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland
4 Wooded Foothills

Sideboard:15
2 Divert
2 Flusterstorm
1 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
2 Spell Pierce
1 Ancient Grudge
2 Rough // Tumble
1 Krosan Grip
3 Submerge




Hello Sasan,

I've played this deck for multiple years through the different versions and transformations it has gone through. Here are my quick thoughts about the deck. I will address piece by piece of the deck, then go through the general discussion with boarding and the matchup against Jund in which is what you asked about.

The land count is correct with 7 fetches you are using at the moment. I have gone back from 6-7 fetches, I would suggest just testing the number out and what works best for yourself. There are sometimes where I wanted the dual land in my hand, being either an volcanic or tropical island. In reference to your main deck I would make the following changes if I picked up the deck and played it in a big tournament tomorrow. I would cut 1 Izzet Charm, 1 Force of Will, 1 Nimble Mongoose, 2 Forked Bolt, 3 Spell Snare. I would add 1 Tarmogoyf, 2 Grim Lavamancers, 2 Spell Pierce, 1 Dismember, 2 Chain Lightning.

I think forked bolt is a good alternative to chain lightning depending on the metagame you are expecting to see, so please always consider the type of decks you might be playing against in your area of competition. If you play 3 Force of Wills in the main deck, I would add the 4th in the sideboard just so you have access to it for aggressive combo decks. I would personally like to see another red blast of some sort in the sideboard, but thats my persoanl perference.

The Jund Matchup:

Their strategy is to destroy your hand as quickly as possible with the vast amount of discard and card advantage they can generate through dark confidant. You definitely want to side out the Force of Wills since they are a huge card disadvantage in this particular matchup. I would add in additional 1 mana counter options you have in the board and do not cut dazes or spell pierces at all from the deck since they are a hugh counter in the early game. The counters give you a huge tempo advantage, especially if they don't play correctly against you. I would cut Tarmogoyfs after game 1 in this matchup if you go with my list, since you had delver, goose, and lavamancer there to win the game, still very solid and changes are is that they have answers to goyf.

This is a very rough matchup to say the least, but getting a creature early game and protecting it is the best offense against this type of deck. Nimble Mongoose/Delver is MVP in this matchup b/c they can apply quick pressure, especially if they can't get an early threat to stick on the board.

If you want to go over specific situations with the matchup, I can go through my thought process and see if you agree with it or not.

Thanks,

~Shriek~

[Yonthan]

The land count is correct with 7 fetches you are using at the moment. I have gone back from 6-7 fetches, I would suggest just testing the number out and what works best for yourself. There are sometimes where I wanted the dual land in my hand, being either an volcanic or tropical island. In reference to your main deck I would make the following changes if I picked up the deck and played it in a big tournament tomorrow. I would cut 1 Izzet Charm, 1 Force of Will, 1 Nimble Mongoose, 2 Forked Bolt, 3 Spell Snare. I would add 1 Tarmogoyf, 2 Grim Lavamancers, 2 Spell Pierce, 1 Dismember, 2 Chain Lightning.

I think forked bolt is a good alternative to chain lightning depending on the metagame you are expecting to see, so please always consider the type of decks you might be playing against in your area of competition. If you play 3 Force of Wills in the main deck, I would add the 4th in the sideboard just so you have access to it for aggressive combo decks. I would personally like to see another red blast of some sort in the sideboard, but thats my persoanl perference.


Hi Shriek,

May I know the reason for cutting 1 Nimble Mongoose? Is it a meta call which you don't expect to see any Stoneblade decks? I also tried to run 1 Grim Lavamancer MD with 2 in the sizeboard, but then I found that I can't fuel my yard quick enough to activate my Lavamancers. Do you have any comment on that?

Thanks!
Yonthan

[Sasan]

hey Shriek,

thanks for the reall great advices.
May I ask some questions?

Why should we board out Goyf vs Jund? It is still our best beater. In your list you have 3 Mongoose and 4 Delver to make the job but Delvers will die to their 12 removal spells quickly. Mongooses have a bit anti synergie with Lavamancers. So at least we need the Goyfs. What do you think about adding only one Grim to the MD and cutting the goyf count to two and add one Green Suns Zenith for Mongoose number 5? That should help a bit more or?

Furthermore I think Spell Snare is really good now. It can counter opposing goyfs which is huge vs Jund.

After long considerations I am also in the "no sorcery removal" camp - Goddik convinced me.

So I thought two Izzet Charms and one Dismember as removals 5-7 should do a great job besides one Grim in the MD.

Creature base is 4 Delvers, 2 Goyfs, 1 GSZ, 4 Mongoose, 1 Grim.


My sideboarding plan would be:

OTP:
- 4 FoW - 1 Spell Pierce - 1 Daze + 3 Submerge + 1 Divert + 2 Rough/Tumble
OTD:
-4 Fow - 4 Daze + 3 Submerge + 1 Divert + 2 Rough/Tumble + 2 Spell Pierces

I cutted one Divert in the SB as I have one Grim MD as Jund hate and I am lacking space.

What do you think about this boarding?

[Shriekmaw]

Let me address your question on why I would cut Tarmogoyf in the Jund matchup. I agree that in theory it's your best creature and I wouldn't argue that point but think about how much easier it is to protect a 1 mana creature rather than a 2 mana creature the turn you drop it. A lot of games you badically only have 2 or 3 lands that produce color mana so sometimes you mana resources are tight. I always prefer to cut burn spells for additional counter in this matchup minus lightning bolt, I would never cut that.

You need to apply early pressure and protect your threats. The spell snare argument is a metagame call, so if it's really good for you then play it. I just prefer spell pierce main ATM, but def pierce in the board if it's not main. You need access to a full set of them after game 1 in some matchups.

One way to help fuel mongoose and Lavamancer is to add a copy or two of thought scour.

I think your boarding strategy is pretty solid to me. The trickiest thing on this matchup is what do I side out. I would be interested in some tournaments you play in down the road with a metagame breakdown.

As always I wish you the best of luck and I do love this deck still since it applies so much early pressure and has a solid game plan against most of the field.

I apologize if there is spelling/grammar issues, responding to this post on my iPhone.

Take Care,

[Sasan]

I have a question for all Canadian experts:

With the rise of BUG and Jund, what do you think about a unblockable, decay Safe creature that can Chump Block forever?

Let me introduce you to Mire Boa. Swamp Walk makes Mire Boa always two damage, so it is a living one-sided sulfuric vortex vs BUG and Jund. It only deals one less damage than our all star in these matchups mongoose.

The big thing is the regeneration ability for only one G. So it can always be safed from decay and it can block all fatties in the format expect for Tombstalker and will not die.

If you ask me, a solid two off in the sideboard that can be sided in versus those matchups of you have the space.

What do you think?

[Ziveeman]

I actually considered River Boa in my SB for Denver for the same reason, though I completely forgot about Mire Boa. I never had the chance to test it, but Mire Boa does seem miles better because decks with Swamp are probably relying on Abrupt Decay as their main source of removal. The only issue I think is that the 1 fewer power than Mongoose or Delver is actually pretty huge. 2 power isn't very threatening.

[Sasan]

A friend also tested Troll Ascetic and had very good results with it. Once it hits the board, the game is in our favor. I always found it too costy versus BUG as they can counter it and we cannot protect it in this case. But versus Jund the Troll seems castable, especially if you play with 4 Tropical Islands and sometimes use Wasteland for the casting cost. And Troll instant wins versus Esper Blade.

But at the moment I consider Mire Boa as 2 damage a turn is huge if it is guaranteed damage. Without it it would be underwhelming.

And another proposal: Aspect of Mongoose. The card is decay safe and reusable. A Delver or a Goyf with Mongoose abilities? Good deal.

[Barbed Blightning]

A friend also tested Troll Ascetic and had very good results with it. Once it hits the board, the game is in our favor. I always found it too costy versus BUG as they can counter it and we cannot protect it in this case. But versus Jund the Troll seems castable, especially if you play with 4 Tropical Islands and sometimes use Wasteland for the casting cost. And Troll instant wins versus Esper Blade.

But at the moment I consider Mire Boa as 2 damage a turn is huge if it is guaranteed damage. Without it it would be underwhelming.

And another proposal: Aspect of Mongoose. The card dodges discard, is decay safe and reusable. A Delver or a Goyf with Mongoose abilities? Good deal.

Aspect of Mongoose isn't safe to discard.

[Sasan]

You are right, I edited that part out yesterday as I did not read the wording careful enough. But it was not edited. Strange.

Other than that, no more feedback to Mire Boa? ;)

[catmint]

...And Troll (Ascetic) instant wins versus Esper Blade.
Let me think of a way how esperblade could beat a 3/2 hexproof. Lingering Souls + Jitte or Batterskull to race it, Engineered Explosives, Terminus or Supreme Verdict to kill it. Also Elspeth or less common Edict effect match up well against the troll.

[Sasan]

Let me think of a way how esperblade could beat a 3/2 hexproof. Lingering Souls + Jitte or Batterskull to race it, Engineered Explosives, Terminus or Supreme Verdict to kill it. Also Elspeth or less common Edict effect match up well against the troll.

That is fair enough but played wisely the Troll makes a lot of trouble to the blade player. Especially if you have a Mongoose in hand in case Terminus etc comes.

But that was not the point of my post, I wanted to discuss the Boa :)

[Barbed Blightning]

That is fair enough but played wisely the Troll makes a lot of trouble to the blade player. Especially if you have a Mongoose in hand in case Terminus etc comes.

But that was not the point of my post, I wanted to discuss the Boa :)

As tech vs. Abrupt Decay.dec? I think it's decent from the board. As a maindeck inclusion? It's competing for many slots. I would also state that 2/1 with not much else isn't exactly exciting.

[wcm8]

As tech vs. Abrupt Decay.dec? I think it's decent from the board. As a maindeck inclusion? It's competing for many slots. I would also state that 2/1 with not much else isn't exactly exciting.

Abrupt Decay.dec doesn't really narrow things down.

That said, here are two cards that could be useful:
-Divert
-Plaxmanta

[Barbed Blightning]

Abrupt Decay.dec doesn't really narrow things down.

That said, here are two cards that could be useful:
-Divert
-Plaxmanta

It's all the same core, with your choice of toppings (maybe BUG's got some differences): Jund for Burn and BBE, Junk for Knight/Souls/STP, BUG/TA for Brainstorm, counters and Jace.

The issue with divert is it's application mid-to-late game--though I suppose once you're there, you're as good as dead anyway. Plaxmanta is well and good, but these BGx decks also pack wasteland, making it difficult to keep that mana open.

Personally, I like Autumn's Veil, despite it not FoW-pitchable.

[Sasan]

the boa would be a two-off in the sideboard besides the main deck creatures.

I think it is really nice and unexpected.

Divert is not always there when you need it.

Plaxmanta needs two open mana every turn. Too much for Canadian.

[firstshot]

My Current list for the MTGO metagame is:

18 lands (6 duals)

4 nimble
4 tarmogoyf
4 delver
1 grim lavamancer
4 ponder
4 brainstorm
2 thought scour
4 force of will
3 daze
4 spell snare
4 stifle
4 lightning bolt

SB
2 Blurred Mongoose(Awesome versus miracles and solid vs any abrubt decay deck)
2 submerge
2 pryoblast
2 spell pierce
2 rough/tumble
2 grafdiggers cage
1 sulfur elemental
1 krosan grip
1 ancient grudge

I have 4-0'd a DE and 3-1'd two other Dailies. Sideboard has changed slightly throughout but this is where I'm staying at the moment. Also NEVER CUT A NIMBLE MONGOOSE from the MAINDECK. Yes you can board them out on occasion but its pretty rare.

[ceustice]

Is it just me that feels like we can get more value from going back to more Spell Snares and Spell Pierces right now then having the suit of stifles? I think I'm going to try it I think it will be nice to have more counters for Goyf, Hymn and so on.

[HulkFindItThisWay]

I've had some luck with a Jitte in the main. People have argued about spending the Mana but the it has won me far too many games. It has helped against Shaman, Spirit tokens, Goblins, Merfolk, and Elves. It could just be my local metta but it seems pretty good. I've also started using a Misdirection in the main. Opinions?

[Peruzo]

Hey guys. Has anyone tried simic charm yet? I know the 2 mana is an issue, but the modes are excellent for the deck, even as a burn spell by giant growth mode, and obviously great vs abrupt decay

[Demonic_Attorney]

the boa would be a two-off in the sideboard besides the main deck creatures.

Divert is not always there when you need it.



It is if you play more than 2 (i.e. 3).

[pochy]

I've also started using a Misdirection in the main. Opinions?

i was just wondering if in the current meta, 2-3 Misdirection would be potentially useful maindeck or not.
What are your first impressions using them?
and what do other people here think about it?


p.s. first post, sorry if i did some mistakes.

[jin]

i was just wondering if in the current meta, 2-3 Misdirection would be potentially useful maindeck or not.
What are your first impressions using them?
and what do other people here think about it?


p.s. first post, sorry if i did some mistakes.

Welcome to the forum. Misdirection is good for some situations but being so situational already doesn't make the cut. The deck isn't versatile at all. Canadian Thresh is a very aggressive deck that does 2 things:

1. slow shit down
2. beat shit down

That said, adding versatility doesn't add to its game. It has to be every efficient with every card it plays because it's not in it for the long haul. Another thing about Canadian Thresh is that it has no ways to make card advantage besides the occasional Fork Bolt or Fire//Ice (Rough//Tumble and Sulfur Elemental off of the SB). That said, we already run Force of Will in the 75 which is card disadvantage, so running Misdirection along side of it would just hurt our hands. If we run it in its place, it would not make sense because Force of Will is less situational and more powerful.

Long story short, Misdirection is bad because it (1) does not add to its game, and more importantly, (2) makes us lose more cards than we want to.

[Sasan]

Welcome to the forum. Misdirection is good for some situations but being so situational already doesn't make the cut. The deck isn't versatile at all. Canadian Thresh is a very aggressive deck that does 2 things:

1. slow shit down
2. beat shit down

That said, adding versatility doesn't add to its game. It has to be every efficient with every card it plays because it's not in it for the long haul. Another thing about Canadian Thresh is that it has no ways to make card advantage besides the occasional Fork Bolt or Fire//Ice (Rough//Tumble and Sulfur Elemental off of the SB). That said, we already run Force of Will in the 75 which is card disadvantage, so running Misdirection along side of it would just hurt our hands. If we run it in its place, it would not make sense because Force of Will is less situational and more powerful.

Long story short, Misdirection is bad because it (1) does not add to its game, and more importantly, (2) makes us lose more cards than we want to.

That is why Divert is better. It does not generate card disadvantage and one mana is totally affordable for Canadian.

[dune2k]

Re Misdirection: At the moment I don't see a reason to play it. There's nothing that needs redirected that badly that -2 cards would be an ok thing to do for it. If you're in a discard/decay heavy meta Divert is the better option, although I've heard from people that they don't like it since whenever they had it in hand and could use it their opponents could pay the 2 mana, they had no legal targets to redirect to etc.

Another thing: Finally having finished my Can. Thresh deck I've decided to take it to a small tournament this weekend. I don't know anything about it's meta except that there will be 2 players playing combo (High Tide, ANT/TES).
Here's my list as is:

Main:
4 Wasteland
3 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
4 Polluted Delta
4 Misty Rainforest

4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Delver of Secrets

4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Stifle
2 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember
1 Chain Lightning

Sideboard:
3 Submerge
3 Rough//Tumble
2 Krosan Grip
1 Scavenging Ooze
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Flusterstorm
2 Pyroblast

So, a pretty standard list.
Krosan Grip is in there, since in the area I tend to play in both Stoneblade as well as Enchantress is played a lot.
Dismember/Chain Lightning are played since they can handle more stuff than Forked Bolts.

Any recommendations for a pretty much unknown meta?

[jin]

That is why Divert is better. It does not generate card disadvantage and one mana is totally affordable for Canadian.

Divert is better than Misdirection in this deck, in this metagame right now. But Spell Snare/Spell Pierce are both better than Divert. I wouldn't run Divert in my 75 right now. It doesn't have any real application. You are boarding in Divert just to hate on the 3-4 Abrupt Decays that people are running? That seems mighty weak. You run only 8 relevant creatures they can hit with it. I would just play through the Abrupt Decay. They don't have 8, they have 4. I think something to really worry about is Show and Tell decks. That's a less win-able match up and deserves SB slots.



Re Misdirection: At the moment I don't see a reason to play it. There's nothing that needs redirected that badly that -2 cards would be an ok thing to do for it. If you're in a discard/decay heavy meta Divert is the better option, although I've heard from people that they don't like it since whenever they had it in hand and could use it their opponents could pay the 2 mana, they had no legal targets to redirect to etc.

Another thing: Finally having finished my Can. Thresh deck I've decided to take it to a small tournament this weekend. I don't know anything about it's meta except that there will be 2 players playing combo (High Tide, ANT/TES).
Here's my list as is:

Main:
4 Wasteland
3 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
4 Polluted Delta
4 Misty Rainforest

4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Delver of Secrets

4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Stifle
2 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember
1 Chain Lightning

Sideboard:
3 Submerge
3 Rough//Tumble
2 Krosan Grip
1 Scavenging Ooze
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Flusterstorm
2 Pyroblast

So, a pretty standard list.
Krosan Grip is in there, since in the area I tend to play in both Stoneblade as well as Enchantress is played a lot.
Dismember/Chain Lightning are played since they can handle more stuff than Forked Bolts.

Any recommendations for a pretty much unknown meta?

I don't understand why people are discussing Divert at all.

Your deck looks good. The first thing I'd remove is Scavenging Ooze. It does nothing in the SB. You run 3 Tropical Islands; it is NOT graveyard hate. It's borderline Tarmogoyf hate, but Submerge is definitely better than Scavenging Ooze in this deck. You play 3x Submerge already - good job.

Flusterstorm seem redundant with your MB counter heavy list. I'd suggest alternative hate cards for Storm Combo/Show and Tell combo since you already have quite a heavy counter magic base in your MB. I would suggest stuff like Guilded Drake or Pyrostatic Pillar.

I also think you are underestimating the power of Sulfuric Vortex. That card is strong against many many decks. I wouldn't suggest anything less than 2x of those. I hope I helped. Good luck.

[wcm8]

I personally am a fan of Saito's recent list.

19 lands (3/3 trop/volc, 4 waste, 9 fetch)
12 creatures (4/4/4 goyf/goose/delver)
7 bolts (4 lightning bolt, 3 chain lightning)
4 ponder
4 brainstorm
4 daze
3 FoW
3 Spell Pierce
2 thought scour
2 spell snare

SB:
3 sulfuric vortex
1 FoW
1 spell pierce
2 REB
4 submerge
2 rough//tumble
1 life from the loam
1 ancient grudge

Lots of burn, with more in the SB in the form of sulfuric vortex. It also drops Stifle, which is obviously going to be a point of contention. With this list, you can mostly ignore your opponent's mid/late-game and just burn them out. It also doesn't skimp on the combo hate.

[Lans89]

Re Misdirection: At the moment I don't see a reason to play it. There's nothing that needs redirected that badly that -2 cards would be an ok thing to do for it. If you're in a discard/decay heavy meta Divert is the better option, although I've heard from people that they don't like it since whenever they had it in hand and could use it their opponents could pay the 2 mana, they had no legal targets to redirect to etc.

Another thing: Finally having finished my Can. Thresh deck I've decided to take it to a small tournament this weekend. I don't know anything about it's meta except that there will be 2 players playing combo (High Tide, ANT/TES).
Here's my list as is:

Main:
4 Wasteland
3 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
4 Polluted Delta
4 Misty Rainforest

4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Delver of Secrets

4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Stifle
2 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember
1 Chain Lightning

Sideboard:
3 Submerge
3 Rough//Tumble
2 Krosan Grip
1 Scavenging Ooze
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Flusterstorm
2 Pyroblast

So, a pretty standard list.
Krosan Grip is in there, since in the area I tend to play in both Stoneblade as well as Enchantress is played a lot.
Dismember/Chain Lightning are played since they can handle more stuff than Forked Bolts.

Any recommendations for a pretty much unknown meta?

And take Krosan Grip out for Ancient Grudge =), that card is the nuts!

And @ everyone: There was a time that people started running 1 Ooze main and 1 side, isn't that a good option anymore? It really helped against Snapcaster Mage or Lingering Souls, and occasionally made me win against graveyard decks.

[Tammit67]

I personally am a fan of Saito's recent list.

19 lands (3/3 trop/volc, 4 waste, 9 fetch)
12 creatures (4/4/4 goyf/goose/delver)
7 bolts (4 lightning bolt, 3 chain lightning)
4 ponder
4 brainstorm
4 daze
3 FoW
3 Spell Pierce
2 thought scour
2 spell snare

SB:
3 sulfuric vortex
1 FoW
1 spell pierce
2 REB
4 submerge
2 rough//tumble
1 life from the loam
1 ancient grudge

Lots of burn, with more in the SB in the form of sulfuric vortex. It also drops Stifle, which is obviously going to be a point of contention. With this list, you can mostly ignore your opponent's mid/late-game and just burn them out. It also doesn't skimp on the combo hate.

Seems really solid, I just really dislike thoughtscour (even when the card was the best choice for the slot).

[wcm8]

Seems really solid, I just really dislike thoughtscour (even when the card was the best choice for the slot).

I think the way to think of thought scour is more of as cantrip 9-10 (that also happens to accelerate into threshold, or 'destroy' a submerged creature, or screw up a SDT/miracle trigger, etc.) rather than as a distinctive spell. It's a good way to use your mana at the end of a turn, and I think it also does a lot for helping beat combo since you only have a small window of opportunity to win the race -- you need Goose to be swinging in as a 3/3 ASAP.

[Teluin]

I think people in general mis-interpret Misdirection as a strictly 2-for-1 sort of thing like Force of Will. I consider it more of a 2-for-2. A good example of this would be Lightning Bolt. You're not just saving your Delver - you're also destroying their creature or dealing 3 to them directly. That's 2 effects for 2 cards. I'm not saying choose Misdirection over Divert (although I would), but don't just pass it off either.

[Teluin]

Also, late game Divert is no good whereas Misdirection is better (I know Canadian Thresh doesn't want late game, but it happens often enough).

[Yonthan]

Flusterstorm seem redundant with your MB counter heavy list. I'd suggest alternative hate cards for Storm Combo/Show and Tell combo since you already have quite a heavy counter magic base in your MB. I would suggest stuff like Guilded Drake or Pyrostatic Pillar.


Did you mean to board in Pyrostatic Pillar for Storm? I understand that they are running many spells with mana cost less than 3, but doesn't it hurt us too? And we can only land this enchantment on turn 2 (for the ealiest), but that would make us tap out and FoW/Daze would be our only counters at the moment. I feel like it would put me in a very dangerous spot; could you please share your reaons behind using the Pillars? Thanks!

[dune2k]

I hope I helped. Good luck.

You did, thanks. :)


Did you mean to board in Pyrostatic Pillar for Storm? I understand that they are running many spells with mana cost less than 3, but doesn't it hurt us too? And we can only land this enchantment on turn 2 (for the ealiest), but that would make us tap out and FoW/Daze would be our only counters at the moment. I feel like it would put me in a very dangerous spot; could you please share your reaons behind using the Pillars? Thanks!

Think of it like a creature that hits for 3 - 6 every turn. Plus they can't combo out properly when this card is on the table, since it would probably kill them, so they need to find a sollution for it, which gives us time to deliver more beats and find more counters. ;)

[HulkFindItThisWay]

That is why Divert is better. It does not generate card disadvantage and one mana is totally affordable for Canadian.

I disagree. Misdirection gives you a tempo advantage that divert can't. Being able to pitch a card and play it for free I'd something that I have found more useful. Tapping out in a game one situation where you're able to play out your threats with a Force of Will, Spell Pierce, and Misdirection in hand gives you WAY more then a Divert would.
Divert is decent but if they leave spell pierce Mana open, they can get around it. Early game Divert might be better but Misdirection is good the entire game.

[HulkFindItThisWay]

i was just wondering if in the current meta, 2-3 Misdirection would be potentially useful maindeck or not.
What are your first impressions using them?
and what do other people here think about it?


p.s. first post, sorry if i did some mistakes.

2-3 Main is WAY too many IMO. I cut down to 1 main. It isn't just for Decay. Flipping a Hymn on turn 2 is hilarious.

[HulkFindItThisWay]

I think people in general mis-interpret Misdirection as a strictly 2-for-1 sort of thing like Force of Will. I consider it more of a 2-for-2. A good example of this would be Lightning Bolt. You're not just saving your Delver - you're also destroying their creature or dealing 3 to them directly. That's 2 effects for 2 cards. I'm not saying choose Misdirection over Divert (although I would), but don't just pass it off either.

Said it perfectly.

[jin]

I think people in general mis-interpret Misdirection as a strictly 2-for-1 sort of thing like Force of Will. I consider it more of a 2-for-2. A good example of this would be Lightning Bolt. You're not just saving your Delver - you're also destroying their creature or dealing 3 to them directly. That's 2 effects for 2 cards. I'm not saying choose Misdirection over Divert (although I would), but don't just pass it off either.

Although this may be true, your hand is still limited to 7 cards. If you are playing FOW, and DRAW the FOW, you effectively have less cards. If you have the FOW and the Misdirection, then you might as well be playing with 3 cards. Sure, it's pretty awesome to misdirect a Hymn to Tourach here and there or a Thoughtseize for a 2-for-2, but those are best case scenarios. In the best case scenery, they'd walk into our Stifle and Daze after we've dropped a Delver and it flips.

You should think of a worst cast scenario. They Punishing Fires your flier, and all they have on the board is Tarmogoyf or a Sylvan Library. Misdirection also doesn't handle Liliana. It's also a terrible late game top-deck compared with a threat or a cantrip. What could have that Misdirection have been instead? This all comes down to: 'what do you cut for the Misdirection?' and 'is it worth it?'



Did you mean to board in Pyrostatic Pillar for Storm? I understand that they are running many spells with mana cost less than 3, but doesn't it hurt us too? And we can only land this enchantment on turn 2 (for the ealiest), but that would make us tap out and FoW/Daze would be our only counters at the moment. I feel like it would put me in a very dangerous spot; could you please share your reaons behind using the Pillars? Thanks!



Think of it like a creature that hits for 3 - 6 every turn. Plus they can't combo out properly when this card is on the table, since it would probably kill them, so they need to find a sollution for it, which gives us time to deliver more beats and find more counters. ;)

When you think it has a negative effect on us, you are thinking we are forced to cast more spells to win. This is false. We can just drop a creature or two and ride that to victory along with our burns. Storm combo MUST cast some number of spells and then a Storm card. That said, it will beat the less experienced storm combo players and hinder the more experienced ones. I'm not saying it's an auto win against storm combo, but it's a possible sideboard that adds variety to what you already have. The added pressure mentioned by dune2k plus your dude beating them down, plus your potential counter spells is enough to force some players to screw up.

I thought of another one. Chalice of the Void for 0 is quite troublesome for a lot of storm decks. It also doesn't cost 2 mana like Pyrostatic Pillar. The problem with counterspells right now is that Gitaxian Probe (ran by pretty much every storm combo deck) just shuts you down. Adding the versatility of 'other' combo hate will add to your hate far more than adding more counterspells.

Typically good players on both sides think they have the advantage. In reality, it's closer to 50/50. The difference probably being Orim's Chant and how well prepared your SB is. Adding a diversity of hate is a lot stronger than simply playing more counter spells as most of their sideboard is probably to hate out your counterspells already.

I hope I helped with your storm question.

[jin]

oops, double. Sorry.

[Teluin]

I was strictly comparing Misdirection vs. Divert. I wouldn't mainboard either of them, unless you're expecting a lot of BUG decks in your meta.

[jin]

I was strictly comparing Misdirection vs. Divert. I wouldn't mainboard either of them, unless you're expecting a lot of BUG decks in your meta.

Good call, I just wanted to clear that up. Would you SB it though? It's effectiveness will depend on what your list looks like and what you SB out. I personally think that GBx decks can be defeated by simply out playing the Abrupt Decays. People will start winning once they accept the fact that Abrupt Decay is 'un-disruptable' and move on. Trading one for one is bad, but hardly a problem for a deck that plays Nimble Mongoose and burns.

[HulkFindItThisWay]

I was strictly comparing Misdirection vs. Divert. I wouldn't mainboard either of them, unless you're expecting a lot of BUG decks in your meta.

I agree. They are only good against BUG. I always end up boarding my Misdirection out against everything else. If my local meta shows less BUG I would probably put a Snare or Pierce instead.

[Peruzo]

Good call, I just wanted to clear that up. Would you SB it though? It's effectiveness will depend on what your list looks like and what you SB out. I personally think that GBx decks can be defeated by simply out playing the Abrupt Decays. People will start winning once they accept the fact that Abrupt Decay is 'un-disruptable' and move on. Trading one for one is bad, but hardly a problem for a deck that plays Nimble Mongoose and burns.

If we agree that Decay is undisruptable, then what's the point of playing divert?. I mean is it really worth it to try and get them with a diverted hymn when you can be piercing anything targeted plus lilianas and whatever. I'm currently running 3 snare main and 3 divert sb. Soon to be 3 pierce sb

[Teluin]

Good call, I just wanted to clear that up. Would you SB it though? It's effectiveness will depend on what your list looks like and what you SB out. I personally think that GBx decks can be defeated by simply out playing the Abrupt Decays. People will start winning once they accept the fact that Abrupt Decay is 'un-disruptable' and move on. Trading one for one is bad, but hardly a problem for a deck that plays Nimble Mongoose and burns.

Is really meta dependant. A redirect-type spell is decent against Jund or even UWR Delver if it picks up steam - you can redirect their bolt back at their Geist after all. The spell's got some versatility, so if your meta has quite a few decks it can be useful against then absolutely.

[jin]

If we agree that Decay is undisruptable, then what's the point of playing divert?. I mean is it really worth it to try and get them with a diverted hymn when you can be piercing anything targeted plus lilianas and whatever. I'm currently running 3 snare main and 3 divert sb. Soon to be 3 pierce sb

That's my point.


Is really meta dependant. A redirect-type spell is decent against Jund or even UWR Delver if it picks up steam - you can redirect their bolt back at their Geist after all. The spell's got some versatility, so if your meta has quite a few decks it can be useful against then absolutely.

I suppose. You can always just block the geist and tank the 4 damage..

[dune2k]

Since I asked about help with my sideboard some pages ago a small report from the weekend.
This was the list I ended up playing:

Main:
4 Wasteland
3 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
4 Polluted Delta
4 Misty Rainforest

4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Delver of Secrets

4 Force of Will
4 Daze
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Stifle
2 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember
1 Chain Lightning

Sideboard:
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Krosan Grip
1 Ancient Grudge
2 Rough // Tumble
4 Submerge
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
2 Pyroblast


We were 8 people, so a pretty small tournament. ;)
The "meta" was...well...interesting: 4 Canadian Threshold, 1 Dredge, 1 Merfolk, 2 (Esper) Stoneblade.

1st Round: Esperblade (1-1-1) 0-0-1
First game he handles most of my creatures, but at some point a creature (Goyf? Goose?) sticks and beats him down. Second game he basically crushes me with a creature carrying a Jitte. Third game starts in extra turn 1...

2nd Round: Candian Threshold (2-0) 1-0-1
Both games I play very aggressively both and my "skill" of drawing 4-5 land hands with almost any deck actually helps me out. Second game he scoops after his Goyf, being his only creature at that point, gets Submerged and my board is Delver (flipped), Delver (flips next turn), Goyf, Goyf.

3rd Round: LED Dredge (0-2) 1-1-1
Dredge. I don't draw any hate or FoW to counter his enablers and he has the (almost) nuts start both games...

I still ended up getting third and winning some store credit.

I'm pretty happy with my list at the moment, although I probably would change the Extractions to Grafdigger's Cages, since they are more effective against Dredge (which around here ALWAYS shows up) & does almost the same in the other matchups. Since I didn't encounter any Storm-decks I couldn't test out the pillars, but during the Esper Blade match drawing a Vortex would have been nice...

[Sturtzilla]

I'm pretty happy with my list at the moment, although I probably would change the Extractions to Grafdigger's Cages, since they are more effective against Dredge (which around here ALWAYS shows up) & does almost the same in the other matchups. Since I didn't encounter any Storm-decks I couldn't test out the pillars, but during the Esper Blade match drawing a Vortex would have been nice...

The maindeck that I have been running is almost identical to yours. I think I have a Forked Bolt in place of the Dismember at the moment. I have been running 2 Grafdigger's Cages and 1-2 Surgical Extractions for my graveyard hate. I have been pretty happy with the split. Cage is really powerful versus Dredge and Reanimator strategies. Surgical is a bit more broad. It can still be very helpful against these types of decks but can also be used to neuter combo decks that rely on casting lots of spells. These would mostly be storm variants such as TES, ANT, Belcher, and High Tide. Just my two cents.

[alekill]

Played in a 39 person win a Mox yesterday coming in 12th and going 4-2-1. My losses were to MonoB pox and omnishow in my win and in. I drew in the mirror.

I was never really in it when I played against pox and he took it pretty easily. Against the omnishow guy he tried to slow play for the 1-0 win when he realized my only clock was going to be a 1/1 mongoose and there were 7 minutes left. Eventually I killed him and in game three he cast 4 show in tells in the first 5 turns after I wasted him multiple times.

[dune2k]

The maindeck that I have been running is almost identical to yours. I think I have a Forked Bolt in place of the Dismember at the moment.

I prefer it over Forked Bolt since it's an instant and can hit bigger creatures w/o 2-for-1ing myself. :)


I have been running 2 Grafdigger's Cages and 1-2 Surgical Extractions for my graveyard hate. I have been pretty happy with the split. Cage is really powerful versus Dredge and Reanimator strategies. Surgical is a bit more broad. It can still be very helpful against these types of decks but can also be used to neuter combo decks that rely on casting lots of spells. These would mostly be storm variants such as TES, ANT, Belcher, and High Tide. Just my two cents.

I don't like Extractions versus (most) combo decks, here's why:
It can hurt TES/ANT, but only in a certain scenario when countering one of their spells and then extracting it. During their combo turn you probably won't be able to play spells or will have discarded it already. Still, it _might_ be helpful, although these are better matchups already.
Belcher is a joke deck. ;) We have counters alreday, this should be enough to deal with. Extracting their wincons seems overkill.
Now to High Tide: I tend to play the deck myself, so all I can say is that the extraction either gets countered or if it doesn't you don't care. Also in G2 there probably is one High Tide as a wish target available.

Summing it up:
1. Most combo decks are good matchups already.
2. Extractions often seem more like a win more, especially since most players expect them.
3. I'd rather prefer something that helps our gameplan: Flusterstorm (overkill? weak to discard?) or Pyrostatic Pillar come to mind here.

Anyway for a open meta I am supporting what you said. It's a broad answer, since it also deals with stuff like Lands/Loam and so on.

The next time when I bring the deck to a tournament though I will probably be playing Cages over Extractions, seeing how that goes. :)

@alekill: Congrats. :)

[jin]

Since I didn't encounter any Storm-decks I couldn't test out the pillars, but during the Esper Blade match drawing a Vortex would have been nice...

Congrats on 3rd. Like I said before though, you underestimate Sulfuric Vortex. You need at least 2 of those. I'd go as far as 3 if I was expecting a lot of long match ups. I'd probably cut a submerge for a Sulfuric Vortex. Vortex is great in the BGx match ups as well.

Also, regarding Grafdigger's cage, I don't think that's a great idea since most of Dredge boards are packing Ancient Grudge + Chain of Vapors. I'd rather play more one shot graveyard hate like Tormod's Crypt as Crypt doesn't give you a false sense of invincibility like Cage does. You may also consider your Surgical Extraction targets. I'm like you and think Extraction is garbage, but my friends seem to have some success with it targeting bridge from below and Ichorids.

[Sturtzilla]

I have never been really sold on the Dismember plan. In an aggro heavy meta spending 4 life to kill one guy can swing the game, but can also be a real liability. I have been seeing it in a lot of lists. Maybe I will give it a shot in the next few weeks.

As for the graveyard hate question, one of the big problems is that if you are relying on your sideboard cards, you probably want at least 3-4 slots. I have always been a fan of diversifying my hate a little bit. Anyway, you do make good points on both topics though.

[stevenx01]

Is there any way to improve the UR delver match up. I played it twice and managed to beat it once at scg cinci, it felt a little too close for comfort each game though so I'm wondering what we can do to fix it

[syfilisx]

As UR player, on the play try trumping their mana. Otherwise just kill delver, outclass other guys with Goyf and mongoose. Don't run into a Price of progress. Sometimes they still burn you, but yeah. Scavenging ooze is pretty good.

[ImpinAintEasy]

Just got back from SCG Cincy and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I won't waste too much time with a huge write up because after all I scrubbed out in 66th place outta 280 or so players.

First of all, my list:

4 Delver
4 Goyf
4 Goose

4 Misty
4 Tarn
4 Waste
3 Trops
3 Volcanics

4 FOW
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
3 Daze
4 Bolt
4 Stifle
3 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
2 Forked Bolt

SB
3 Submerge
2 Sulfurice Vortex
2 Ancient Grudge
1 Envelop
1 Divert
1 Grim Lavamancer
1 REB
1 Pyroblast
1 Flusterstorm
2 Rough/Tumble

I went round and round with myself mentally regarding 3 or 4 dazes maindeck. I've always felt comfortable with 4, but lately testing with 3 on MTGO has been successful. Up until about 5 mins before the tournament, the 3rd spell pierce was a maindeck flusterstorm and the 2nd ancient grudge was a V Clique. But alas, I can never make up my mind so hence the last minute changes.

Rd 1 - Derick - pretty sure this was the RUG player who Top 8, but I could be wrong, waiting for PPoints to confirm last name. Anyways, he won the die roll and I lost the mirror match 1-2. My board states in game 3 was pretty good and I felt confident I had the win in hand, untiil some timely draws gave him momentum. I had , nimble, Nimble, Goyf, sick Grim, to his Nimble Goyf. We were both at 9 life, he has 4 lands, I have just 1 of each. He submerges my goyf, wastes my trop, he attacks with everything, so I decide double block for fear of him drawing bolt. I kill his goyf and we are left with a nimble and grim and he is left with nimble. I know he is holding a stifle from trigger delver a few turns ago. I draw my uncastable goyf, he draws a castable goyf and proceeds to win. Seems like his draws were near perfect, submerge,waste, goyf.....sick and it's onto round 2 in the losers bracket. Edit - it wasn't the same Derick, got him confused as he played my buddy on camera in like round 8.
Rd 2 - Can't Remember W 2-0, Edit - remembered, Goblins
Rd 3 - Punishing Zoo W 2-1, flipped over his card during shuffling, my first game warning ever in competitive magic (guess that streak has ended lol).
Rd 4 - W 2-0 vs. RDW
Rd 5 - vs. High Tide Michael Tabler (finished 2nd in tournament) Our game 3 was such an epic battle. He is dead on board next turn and has to go for it. We fight over counters for a little bit, he ends up landing meditate and after the match tells me he hit the perfect nut draw of 4 cards, otherwise he was pretty sure he was going to fizzle out. Oh well dems the breaks.
Rd 6 - W 2-1 vs. Lands - hate playing against this deck, seriously do you even like playing magic?
Rd 7 - W 2-1 vs. OmniTell - super awesome dude, we laughed throughout the tournament and as much as I enjoy MODO, this is exactly why paper is always better than plastic.
Rd 8 vs. Mirror Ben Weinburg - I obviously was outclassed in this matchup and clearly need more testing on the mirror match. Got rolled 2-0. Funny tidbit about Ben, he actually beat 3 of the 5 of us that drove to the tournament together, we had a little laugh about putting Ben Weinburg 6-0 vs. This car in soap all over the windows. Dude seriously swept us all, ugly!
Rd 9 vs. Charbelcher - L 0-2. He is on the play game 1, doesn't play a land and passes, like a noob I immediately put him on dredge for some reason. Since I forgo the dredge sb hate, I decided I needed to immediately put pressure on by casting Delver. He proceeds to combo off for 10 goblins while I laugh at the stifle and brainstorm sitting in my hand.

So yea, sitting at 5-2 after round 7, just needed to win one of last two rounds to place and couldn't close the deal.

There is always next time, right Cubs fans!

Oh and BTW, Mark Sun, the RUG Gods have now turned their backs on you, how dare you shy away from the love that is RUG. You are now forever shunned from the RUG Thread lol!

[JDK]

Is there any way to improve the UR delver match up. I played it twice and managed to beat it once at scg cinci, it felt a little too close for comfort each game though so I'm wondering what we can do to fix it
Don't drop more lands than absolutely necessary, play Goyf only out of Bolt range and get Mongoose online.

[wcm8]

Also, consider playing more Spell Snare. That card is pretty good lately. Maybe not 4-of good, but 2-3 is a worthy consideration.

[Mark Sun]

Oh and BTW, Mark Sun, the RUG Gods have now turned their backs on you, how dare you shy away from the love that is RUG. You are now forever shunned from the RUG Thread lol!

Yeah, yeah... :rolleyes:

Just can't find a comfortable configuration. Basically flunking out of Legacy right now, it's unreal when the last time I experienced a good tournament in this format was.

[Sturtzilla]

Just can't find a comfortable configuration. Basically flunking out of Legacy right now, it's unreal when the last time I experienced a good tournament in this format was.

This is the exact reason that I have been brewing a bit. I have been having a hard time figuring out how to fill the few flex slots in RUG. This is probably due to people in my area changing their decks. It has been 2-4 weeks since I won/prize split locals. I have been messing around with both U/W Miracles and U/W Tempo. They are both seem promising at the moment. I don't really like the amount of durdling that Miracles does. Anyway good luck on finding something you are happy with.

[dune2k]

Congrats on 3rd. Like I said before though, you underestimate Sulfuric Vortex. You need at least 2 of those. I'd go as far as 3 if I was expecting a lot of long match ups. I'd probably cut a submerge for a Sulfuric Vortex. Vortex is great in the BGx match ups as well.

Thanks. :)
I only had 1 Vortex and the ones I ordered only arrived after that tourney. Well, next time I'll probably up the count.
This time having 4 Submerge was awesome with a room full of Can. Thresh. ;)
On the next tourney, which is bigger, they won't be as effective though...


Also, regarding Grafdigger's cage, I don't think that's a great idea since most of Dredge boards are packing Ancient Grudge + Chain of Vapors. I'd rather play more one shot graveyard hate like Tormod's Crypt as Crypt doesn't give you a false sense of invincibility like Cage does.

It's the combination of Cages and Counterspells that I think makes them better. Even if they draw A. Grudge, they can only play it once if it gets countered (and dredging it away does not help either). As I said, I will go through various forms of GY hate and see what fits my playstyle best. :)


You may also consider your Surgical Extraction targets. I'm like you and think Extraction is garbage, but my friends seem to have some success with it targeting bridge from below and Ichorids.

I don't think it's garbage, that'd be a little too much. I' rather say, it isn't as good as some people may think. It buys time against various GY based strategies, but isn't GG when resolved.
Against specific decks, mostly Dredge since both Reanimator & Lands are not played that much around here, there are solutions that "fit" better imo.

@wcm8: Yes, Spell Snare is pretty good right now. I wouldn't run 4 but 2, maybe 3 in certain metas, seem fine, since you'd usually find targets (Hymn and Goyf being two of them ;)).

[jin]

It's the combination of Cages and Counterspells that I think makes them better. Even if they draw A. Grudge, they can only play it once if it gets countered (and dredging it away does not help either). As I said, I will go through various forms of GY hate and see what fits my playstyle best. :)


What would you board out if you don't board out counter spells versus dredge?

[Einherjer]

What would you board out if you don't board out counter spells versus dredge?

Obv. you don't board out the good countermagic like Force, Daze, Pierce but rather cards like Spell Snare, Forked Bolt, Dismember, Sylvan Library...

Greetings

[wcm8]

Izzet Staticaster is something I would look into running in the sideboard. It's a repeatable answer to various tokens and is also useful against certain tribal decks (Goblins, Elves, etc.)

Sulfur Elemental is still good since he's also a threat, answers an active MoR, kills Death and Taxes dead, and is uncounterable... but I wouldn't so easily dismiss a pseudo-Engineered Plague in UR considering that Elves are now a DtB.

It's probably competing somewhat with Rough//Tumble slots, but I think you could run a mixture to fine effect.

[Ziveeman]

Staticaster seems sweet. You can still hold up countermagic too, and you also win Goyf wars. It fulfills the same role as Sulfur Elemental. Since it comes down EOT you can still kill Mother of Runes, even multiple since they all have to protect themselves.

[nitewolf9]

Staticaster seems sweet. You can still hold up countermagic too, and you also win Goyf wars.

Just a quick note, this will kill your Tarmogoyf as well if you are planning on bouncing it off of theirs and Staticastering it.

[Ziveeman]

True. Did not realize that. So everyone loses the Goyf war.

[jin]

Obv. you don't board out the good countermagic like Force, Daze, Pierce but rather cards like Spell Snare, Forked Bolt, Dismember, Sylvan Library...

Greetings

Obviously...


Izzet Staticaster is something I would look into running in the sideboard. It's a repeatable answer to various tokens and is also useful against certain tribal decks (Goblins, Elves, etc.)

Sulfur Elemental is still good since he's also a threat, answers an active MoR, kills Death and Taxes dead, and is uncounterable... but I wouldn't so easily dismiss a pseudo-Engineered Plague in UR considering that Elves are now a DtB.

It's probably competing somewhat with Rough//Tumble slots, but I think you could run a mixture to fine effect.

Also, it can pitch to FOW, it's easier to cast, but can be REDblasted. So your argument for it being better than Sulfur Elemental is it can hit nonwhite creatures? I think it'll be good if you are at parity or ahead, but will it be good when you are losing? Just stirring up conversation...

[Ziveeman]

I usually boarded in Sulfur Elemental in the Goblin matchup because I didn't have enough cards to board in, but a ton to take out. If it was Staticaster, at least it would do something against them rather than just be a body.

[Vandalize]

Obv. you don't board out the good countermagic like Force, Daze, Pierce but rather cards like Spell Snare, Forked Bolt, Dismember, Sylvan Library...

Greetings

You should totally leave Forket Bolt in, so you can kill two Narcomoebas in your turn, and give me 6 to 8 zombies.

[Mark Sun]

True. Did not realize that. So everyone loses the Goyf war.

Geez, guys, don't you play Standard? :laugh:

In all of honesty, it took me a whole to realize the same thing with Restoration Angel too.

Staticaster seems pretty insane, actually. Might be something to try out if Sulfur Elemental isn't versatile enough in your metagame. I do like the Split Second on the Elemental, though, but I'm sure the reuse-ability of Staticaster would outweigh that. The only issue that I would see with it is the fact that it doesn't have a whole ton of offense, so keep that in mind when making the swap. RUG Delver operates successfully in small windows within the game, and Staticaster is a game that pushes for the long game.

[MattiasNL]

Since it comes down EOT you can still kill Mother of Runes, even multiple since they all have to protect themselves.

Not really, just the one you targetted.

[Asthereal]

Not really, just the one you targetted.
The other Mothers of Runes have the same name as the one you targeted. :wink:

[wbw]

Izzet Staticaster can't deal (alone) with two or more active MoMs. They only have to protect the targeted one and the ability will be countered because of lack of valid targets, therefore not killing the other(s) MoM(s).

[Ziveeman]

Geez, guys, don't you play Standard? :laugh:

In all of honesty, it took me a whole to realize the same thing with Restoration Angel too.

Staticaster seems pretty insane, actually. Might be something to try out if Sulfur Elemental isn't versatile enough in your metagame. I do like the Split Second on the Elemental, though, but I'm sure the reuse-ability of Staticaster would outweigh that. The only issue that I would see with it is the fact that it doesn't have a whole ton of offense, so keep that in mind when making the swap. RUG Delver operates successfully in small windows within the game, and Staticaster is a game that pushes for the long game.

Shows how much I know about the new cards :P I think it's something to consider based on the metagame. Seems pretty good against Goblins and Lingering Souls, at least. Perhaps not against Mom (I need to think before posting!). At least it invalidates Mom, I guess.

[Malakai]

Staticaster kills mom. This should be obvious if you spend a few seconds thinking about it. That said, it's not like RUG needs help killing creatures.

[wcm8]

That said, it's not like RUG needs help killing creatures.

It can always use a hand in killing multiple creatures.

The way to look at Staticaster is kinda like RUG's own version of Darkblast or Engineered Plague. Those cards are good because they are repeatable/static. And they are generally far too narrow to be put anywhere but the sideboard, but they are devastating in the matchups where they matter.

Obviously something like Forked Bolt is more efficient, but Izzet Staticaster is a card that can single-handedly take over the game if it goes unanswered. And unlike Grim Lavamancer (which is fantastic against tribal), Staticaster puts no stress on your graveyard, thus keeping your Goyfs and Geese robust. Unlike Rough//Tumble, it also won't kill your early-game Delvers or Mongeese.

The problem RUG often faces against attrition-y matchups is that it has few ways to generate real card advantage. Staticaster is just a good option against these types of attrition-based aggro decks that run a bunch of x/1 creatures. And unlike Submerge or Sulfur Elemental, you're not limited by the color of your opponent's flavor of aggro. Thus it can come in against Elves, Zombies, Wx aggro, Bant (hierarch, dryad arbors, vendilion cliques), Stoneblade decks (spirit tokens, snapcasters, cliques), Faeries, Goblins (a bit slow here, but a trump once resolved), Belcher/Storm (Goblin tokens, Xantid Swarms, Dark Confidant), and whatever else kinda jank that gets thrown in your path.

Definitely run 1, and consider more.

Here's my current sideboard:
4 Submerge
1 Life from the Loam
1 Scavenging Ooze
1 Force of Will (3 in maindeck)
1 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
1 Ancient Grudge
3 Sulfuric Vortex (this card is the nutter butters. Kills Miracles, Stoneblade, and other durdly decks that are otherwise troublesome for RUG)
2 Izzet Staticaster (for all the reasons I've outlined above)

[jin]

It can always use a hand in killing multiple creatures.

The way to look at Staticaster is kinda like RUG's own version of Darkblast or Engineered Plague. Those cards are good because they are repeatable/static. And they are generally far too narrow to be put anywhere but the sideboard, but they are devastating in the matchups where they matter.

Obviously something like Forked Bolt is more efficient, but Izzet Staticaster is a card that can single-handedly take over the game if it goes unanswered. And unlike Grim Lavamancer (which is fantastic against tribal), Staticaster puts no stress on your graveyard, thus keeping your Goyfs and Geese robust. Unlike Rough//Tumble, it also won't kill your early-game Delvers or Mongeese.

The problem RUG often faces against attrition-y matchups is that it has few ways to generate real card advantage. Staticaster is just a good option against these types of attrition-based aggro decks that run a bunch of x/1 creatures. And unlike Submerge or Sulfur Elemental, you're not limited by the color of your opponent's flavor of aggro. Thus it can come in against Elves, Zombies, Wx aggro, Bant (hierarch, dryad arbors, vendilion cliques), Stoneblade decks (spirit tokens, snapcasters, cliques), Faeries, Goblins (a bit slow here, but a trump once resolved), Belcher/Storm (Goblin tokens, Xantid Swarms, Dark Confidant), and whatever else kinda jank that gets thrown in your path.

Definitely run 1, and consider more.

Here's my current sideboard:
4 Submerge
1 Life from the Loam
1 Scavenging Ooze
1 Force of Will (3 in maindeck)
1 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
1 Ancient Grudge
3 Sulfuric Vortex (this card is the nutter butters. Kills Miracles, Stoneblade, and other durdly decks that are otherwise troublesome for RUG)
2 Izzet Staticaster (for all the reasons I've outlined above)

I'm not as convinced as you about its power. Clique is a legendary card, which makes it not relevant verses staticaster. Also your argument is fair about the card being more versatile, but it's also less powerful. Your sideboard should contain cards that are powerful enough to sway a bad match up. I'm not yet convinced that staticaster is that card. Sulfide elemental cannot be played around. When it comes down, white weenies are going to die. Can staticaster be a pseudo plague? Sure, in the best case scenario. But in the worse cast scenario, it doesn't even kill mother of runes. Once it taps, they can plow it. Youll have to expend more cards to kill it. If they have multiples, it seems unlikely you'll kill them all. Sulfur elemental is guaranteed to kill her.

This is not mentioning that people can simPly play around staticaster by not dropping cards with the same name.

[wcm8]

First of all, I'm not saying this card outdoes Sulfur Elemental completely. If you are only concerned with Wx Aggro and Lingering Souls, the choice is clearly in the elemental's favor.

Secondly, rtfc. Staticaster kills every X/1 creature, it doesn't matter if there are multiples on the board. It's basically a Prodigal Sorcerer with the bonus of occasionally destroying a bunch of tokens all at once. I'm not sure why you brought Clique up since Staticaster still kills it.

The slot Staticaster is really competing with is Rough//Tumble.

[wcm8]

Just split for first in a small local tournament (16 players) playing the Saito RUG list and my sideboard I posted on the previous page. The deck felt incredibly solid in every game, and I don't think I would change anything. Obviously I got lucky in my pairings and didn't have to face any graveyard strategies.

The Staticasters did work against my UR Delver opponent. Killed two Grim Lavamancers, and prevented him from deploying any Delvers. It's a bit iffy to ramp to 3 lands against this deck, but if you're bringing in Staticasters it can be done. Daze and Wasting your own lands are keys to not losing to a massive Price of Progress. I didn't get to face any tribal or Lingering souls, but obviously she would have done work there. So I think the card has definitely proven itself as a legit choice, at least for me.

[alekill]

How did you like the thoughtscours?

[jin]

First of all, I'm not saying this card outdoes Sulfur Elemental completely. If you are only concerned with Wx Aggro and Lingering Souls, the choice is clearly in the elemental's favor.

Secondly, rtfc. Staticaster kills every X/1 creature, it doesn't matter if there are multiples on the board. It's basically a Prodigal Sorcerer with the bonus of occasionally destroying a bunch of tokens all at once. I'm not sure why you brought Clique up since Staticaster still kills it.

The slot Staticaster is really competing with is Rough//Tumble.



Obviously something like Forked Bolt is more efficient, but Izzet Staticaster is a card that can single-handedly take over the game if it goes unanswered. And unlike Grim Lavamancer (which is fantastic against tribal), Staticaster puts no stress on your graveyard, thus keeping your Goyfs and Geese robust. Unlike Rough//Tumble, it also won't kill your early-game Delvers or Mongeese.

The problem RUG often faces against attrition-y matchups is that it has few ways to generate real card advantage. Staticaster is just a good option against these types of attrition-based aggro decks that run a bunch of x/1 creatures. And unlike Submerge or Sulfur Elemental, you're not limited by the color of your opponent's flavor of aggro. Thus it can come in against Elves, Zombies, Wx aggro, Bant (hierarch, dryad arbors, vendilion cliques), Stoneblade decks (spirit tokens, snapcasters, cliques), Faeries, Goblins (a bit slow here, but a trump once resolved), Belcher/Storm (Goblin tokens, Xantid Swarms, Dark Confidant), and whatever else kinda jank that gets thrown in your path.

Definitely run 1, and consider more.


You are the one that brought up Clique. I was merely responding to your comment. Clique is largely irrelevant against Tempo Thresh in my opinion. I wouldn't board in anything to disrupt Clique. As a replacement for Rough//Tumble, I don't think it will suffice. Dealing 1 damage is a lot less than dealing 2. Rough//Tumble is actually quite relevant against Jund, but Staticaster is largely irrelevant.

[Milen]

Just split for first in a small local tournament (16 players) playing the Saito RUG list and my sideboard I posted on the previous page. The deck felt incredibly solid in every game, and I don't think I would change anything. Obviously I got lucky in my pairings and didn't have to face any graveyard strategies.

The Staticasters did work against my UR Delver opponent. Killed two Grim Lavamancers, and prevented him from deploying any Delvers. It's a bit iffy to ramp to 3 lands against this deck, but if you're bringing in Staticasters it can be done. Daze and Wasting your own lands are keys to not losing to a massive Price of Progress. I didn't get to face any tribal or Lingering souls, but obviously she would have done work there. So I think the card has definitely proven itself as a legit choice, at least for me.

That is that list that uses 2 Spell Snare 2 Thought Scour instead of 4 Stifle?
I have been looking at it but i can not seem to part ways with the Stifles, did you find times when you wished you had them in?

[wcm8]

How did you like the thoughtscours?

They were great. I was able to hold up Spell Pierce, but then also cantrip at the end of my opponent's turn if they didn't present me something that needed countering. They were great against my high tide opponent since my only two threats in the first game were Nimble Mongeese -- this allowed me to race before he could go off properly. They were also nice in one of my games where I needed to Brainstorm but didn't have a fetchland to shuffle away the chafe. I've been happy with the card, and in matchups where you know it's going to go long and you don't need the blue count for FoW you can just side one or both out.


You are the one that brought up Clique. I was merely responding to your comment. Clique is largely irrelevant against Tempo Thresh in my opinion. I wouldn't board in anything to disrupt Clique. As a replacement for Rough//Tumble, I don't think it will suffice. Dealing 1 damage is a lot less than dealing 2. Rough//Tumble is actually quite relevant against Jund, but Staticaster is largely irrelevant.

No, you're not bringing them in for Clique, you're bringing them in against Esper Stoneblade mainly for Lingering Souls. But Staticaster has the bonus of ALSO killing their Snapcasters and Cliques, unlike Sulfur Elemental. This is relevant because *every* threat becomes a problem if they've managed to land a Jitte or Sword of F&F, and thus everything will need to be killed on arrival from that point on. This allows you to save your burn for Stoneforge, Jace, or their face. Since I am also playing 3 Sulfuric Vortex, my strategy against Blade is going to be trying to get in for 9-12 damage with a creature, land a Vortex, and then direct all burn to their dome.

If you're hoping to beat Jund thanks to Rough//Tumble, I think you should test the matchup more. Personally, that's one matchup that I'm just going to pray to avoid, since beating it consistently means devoting a ton of narrow sideboard slots to it and then some luck on top of that. Their deck is pretty much constructed to beat every fair deck out there, and you have a more pressing issue of dealing with Punishing Fires, Wasteland recursion and their raw card advantage than trying to sweep a board of Dark Confidant and Bloodbraid Elf with a Rough//Tumble.

My approach to Jund is to bring in the Submerge, Life from the Loam, the 4th Spell Pierce and possibly Sulfuric Vortex (a risky play, but often they are suffering to their own Dark Confidants and Thoughtseizes, and it also shuts off Grove of the Burnwillows). And then just hope you get a better hand than theirs.

I know that there are some matchups where 2 damage and 2 mana is relevant over 1 damage and 3 mana, but the utility of Staticaster elevates it for me in my book. I've also found it frustrating to open a grip with Nimble Mongoose or not have my Delver flip soon enough, and *need* to Rough//Tumble early. Staticaster never really presents you with this dilemma.

However, as with pretty much every sideboard card, the current best option will shift, and the number to play will also change as the metagame does. The only cards I feel should be auto-includes to jump off from are 2 REBS/Pyroblast and 2-3 Submerge. The rest is dependent upon the maindeck choices and the expected metagame.


That is that list that uses 2 Spell Snare 2 Thought Scour instead of 4 Stifle?
I have been looking at it but i can not seem to part ways with the Stifles, did you find times when you wished you had them in?

The Saito list is thus:

19 Lands (3/3 volc/trop, 4 waste, 9 fetch)
12 threats (4/4/4 goyf/goose/delver)
7 burn (4 bolt, 3 chain lightning)
10 filter (4/4/2 bstorm/ponder/t scour)
12 counters (4/3/3/2 daze/fow/pierce/snare)

SB:
3 vortex
2 reb
4 submerge
1 loam
1 grudge
1 pierce
1 fow
2 rough//tumble (which I changed to Staticaster)

I think this list is nearly perfect for the current metagame, the only card I would consider fitting in being Sylvan Library.

Not playing Stifle is awesome. Your opponents will still play around it, thus fulfilling the function of the ghost card without devoting slots to something so variable. Yes, you lose the option of the occasional 'free win', but if that's the type of opponent you're playing against, you should beat them regardless. There are a multitude of arguments for and against the card, and I think if your RUG build is different then running it is a completely reasonable choice. But this particular build doesn't need it.

Having 19 lands means less mulligans, a 'smoother feel', and generally a few less losses from opposing Wastelands. I've found that if I needed to protect my own lands from Wasteland with Stifle, I'm already backpedaling and losing anyways. 19 lands is awesome, awesome, awesome. It's a subtle change that has improved the deck's performance for me.

7 Burn also shifts the approach of the deck. There will be multiple games when you'll be hitting your opponent for exactly 20 damage, and Forked Bolt just won't do. Yes, there are times when Forked Bolt can do *more* damage thanks to splitting the damage between an X/1 and your opponent, but I've liked Chain Lightning for being able to just do more raw damage and also kill a Jace. You also need to consider the application it has with the 3 Sulfuric Vortex in the board. Together, you almost become like a mono-red Burn deck and can win by just burning them out. This I feel is the current best approach to beating decks like Esper, UW Miracles, and BUG Control.

[jin]

No, you're not bringing them in for Clique, you're bringing them in against Esper Stoneblade mainly for Lingering Souls. But Staticaster has the bonus of ALSO killing their Snapcasters and Cliques, unlike Sulfur Elemental. This is relevant because *every* threat becomes a problem if they've managed to land a Jitte or Sword of F&F, and thus everything will need to be killed on arrival from that point on. This allows you to save your burn for Stoneforge, Jace, or their face. Since I am also playing 3 Sulfuric Vortex, my strategy against Blade is going to be trying to get in for 9-12 damage with a creature, land a Vortex, and then direct all burn to their dome.

If you're hoping to beat Jund thanks to Rough//Tumble, I think you should test the matchup more. Personally, that's one matchup that I'm just going to pray to avoid, since beating it consistently means devoting a ton of narrow sideboard slots to it and then some luck on top of that. Their deck is pretty much constructed to beat every fair deck out there, and you have a more pressing issue of dealing with Punishing Fires, Wasteland recursion and their raw card advantage than trying to sweep a board of Dark Confidant and Bloodbraid Elf with a Rough//Tumble.

My approach to Jund is to bring in the Submerge, Life from the Loam, the 4th Spell Pierce and possibly Sulfuric Vortex (a risky play, but often they are suffering to their own Dark Confidants and Thoughtseizes, and it also shuts off Grove of the Burnwillows). And then just hope you get a better hand than theirs.

I know that there are some matchups where 2 damage and 2 mana is relevant over 1 damage and 3 mana, but the utility of Staticaster elevates it for me in my book. I've also found it frustrating to open a grip with Nimble Mongoose or not have my Delver flip soon enough, and *need* to Rough//Tumble early. Staticaster never really presents you with this dilemma.

However, as with pretty much every sideboard card, the current best option will shift, and the number to play will also change as the metagame does. The only cards I feel should be auto-includes to jump off from are 2 REBS/Pyroblast and 2-3 Submerge. The rest is dependent upon the maindeck choices and the expected metagame.


I don't bring in Rough//Tumble against Jund, but it's more relevant there than Staticaster. I would definitely bring in the Sulfuric Vortex as Jund doesn't start doing damage until mid-game, where as Tempo Thresh starts doing damage pretty early. Also, Jund tends to do a lot of damage to themselves. Punishing Fires is good against control decks, but Tempo Thresh is very much an aggro deck as Jund. I also run Spell Snare, Daze and Wasteland. That usually stalls long enough for me to do enough damage. Against Jund, I bring in Sulfuric Vortex and Submerge.

If you are talking about auto-inclusions, I would say that Sulfuric Vortex is definitely an auto-include. It helps with so many match ups that would otherwise be a lost cause due to the stalling nature of the other deck. It is by far my most boarded in card.

Also, I have never had a problem with Rough // Tumble leaving me with no creatures. You should either save your brainstorms, or don't drop Nimble Mongoose so early...




Having 19 lands means less mulligans, a 'smoother feel', and generally a few less losses from opposing Wastelands. I've found that if I needed to protect my own lands from Wasteland with Stifle, I'm already backpedaling and losing anyways. 19 lands is awesome, awesome, awesome. It's a subtle change that has improved the deck's performance for me.


I play 19 lands as well. It is definitely the correct choice, but what you say about Stifling Wastelands is definitely incorrect. Stifling a Wasteland provides the same type of advantage as Stifling a Fetchland. Not only are you a land a head, you are a land drop a head and slow their plan down significantly. If I was playing a Wasteland versus Wasteland deck, I'd save my Stifles for the Wastelands. Your deck runs 6 coloured lands. Getting any of them wasted isn't good.

If you've ever played the mirror, you would know your statement about "stifling wasteland = back peddling" is simply not true. A big part of the game is at parity and no one player dominates the game from the start. Stifling Wastelands isn't back peddling at all. It's THE strategy in the mirror. The player that sticks the fattest creature is usually the winner. You can't do that without lands.



7 Burn also shifts the approach of the deck. There will be multiple games when you'll be hitting your opponent for exactly 20 damage, and Forked Bolt just won't do. Yes, there are times when Forked Bolt can do *more* damage thanks to splitting the damage between an X/1 and your opponent, but I've liked Chain Lightning for being able to just do more raw damage and also kill a Jace.

The inclusion of Chain Lightnings is largely questionable. The role you want the Chain Lightnings to take are redundant and largely unnecessary in Tempo Thresh. Sulfuric Vortex already fills that role. For that extra 1 damage, you have to worry about Chain Lightning's inherent disadvantage.

Because of the recent surge of red decks and Deathrite Shamans, Chain Lightnings can be easily redirected back. This is one of the big reasons I'd hesitate to play Chain Lightning. Any choice we give to the opponent always reflects poorly on the role we play as a tempo setter.

[jin]

double post.. sorry

[wcm8]

Backpedaling in the sense that you are spending a card, a turn, and mana to protect a land rather than developing your own board. (Also, it's still possible to protect your lands via Daze and an instant, although obviously Stifle is the easier method). I have played the mirror plenty of times, and I will concede that the deck that draws more (timely) Stifles has the upper hand -- but this is by no means essential.

Stifle isn't always in your opening hand or in the first few draws, and sometimes your opponent just deploys 'actual' (non-fetch) lands. After a certain point it becomes largely irrelevant, even in the matchups where it's typically good. It's not a card I would discount entirely, but I've not felt like the deck suffered too much with its absence.

Regarding Forked Bolt vs. Chain Lightning: really depends on your approach and expected opponents. 2 chain lightnings are worth 3 forked bolts when it comes to the 'end game' scenarios where you've wittled your opponent down to the single digits but just need to dig into some burn to close out. Burning for exact has come up frequently.

[jin]

Backpedaling in the sense that you are spending a card, a turn, and mana to protect a land rather than developing your own board. (Also, it's still possible to protect your lands via Daze and an instant, although obviously Stifle is the easier method). I have played the mirror plenty of times, and I will concede that the deck that draws more (timely) Stifles has the upper hand -- but this is by no means essential.

Stifle isn't always in your opening hand or in the first few draws, and sometimes your opponent just deploys 'actual' (non-fetch) lands. After a certain point it becomes largely irrelevant, even in the matchups where it's typically good. It's not a card I would discount entirely, but I've not felt like the deck suffered too much with its absence.

Regarding Forked Bolt vs. Chain Lightning: really depends on your approach and expected opponents. 2 chain lightnings are worth 3 forked bolts when it comes to the 'end game' scenarios where you've wittled your opponent down to the single digits but just need to dig into some burn to close out. Burning for exact has come up frequently.

The beauty of Stifle is that it is rarely a dead card. Not only does it work on Fetch Lands, it also works on many other activated or triggered abilities. If you think that Stifle's sole purpose is to disable resources, then you are thinking too one dimensionally. Even if the Stifle does not come yet, you can still attempt to play around Wastelands until the Stifle does come. If Stifle comes later, you can use them on other things.

It is certain that the potential of Stifle is an effective tool Tempo Thresh player can employ to "stifle" the opponent's board development. Does it necessarily lose value later on in the game? In some match ups, but so does Spell Pierce. I would also think that Stifle has more value in more match ups simply because it can hit more things. Spell Pierce is effective in a metagame full of fast combo decks, where Stifle would not be dead. Otherwise, Stifle is the superior card. In slow combo match ups, they'll be able to pay for the soft counter. Against aggro decks, it requires to be drawn "timely" just like your situation with Stifle.

In the later game, Stifle shuts out Planeswalker Ultimates, creatures with crippling come into play abilities (destroy target permanent, return all blue creatures to their owner's hand, destroy lands, etc.), Annihilator, Cascade, Pernicious Deed, Engineered Explosives, Xantid Swarm, etc. Stifle gives you an out to a problematic resolved permanent that you would otherwise be unable to answer. By playing Stifles, you are making your Tempo Thresh list more dynamic and robust. Adding more counterspells to a blue deck just makes it predictable and one dimensional.

You are right about burn being the advantage Tempo Thresh has over other Thresh variants. I would have to say though, that I would rather have a Fork Bolt killing multiple 1/1 blockers so that I can connect with my creatures, than to use Chain Lightning. I feel that Sulfuric Vortex to the dome every turn is sufficient enough for you to close out the game. In that regard, I wouldn't mind trying 3x Sulfuric Vortex in the right metagame. Forked Bolt allows me to save my Rough//Tumbles for really bad situations. Maybe that's why you find Rough//Tumble to be anti-productive. You don't run Forked Bolt, so you are forced to expend your Rough//Tumble to stop a Linger Souls, where as I could burn out 2 Souls with a Forked Bolt and save my Rough//Tumbles for when I'm on my hind legs.

I suppose the SB needs depend quite heavily on your MB as well. I'm an advocate of Forked Bolt because it is one of the very few ways Tempo Thresh can generate any real card advantage. I do not feel the extra few points of damage is worth it as having a Chain Lightning flipped back at my Delver would result in quite a bit of frustration for me.

[wcm8]

If you think that Stifle's sole purpose is to disable resources, then you are thinking too one dimensionally.

Adding more counterspells to a blue deck just makes it predictable and one dimensional.

I would have to say though, that I would rather have a Fork Bolt killing multiple 1/1 blockers so that I can connect with my creatures, than to use Chain Lightning.

I feel that Sulfuric Vortex to the dome every turn is sufficient enough for you to close out the game.

You don't run Forked Bolt, so you are forced to expend your Rough//Tumble to stop a Linger Souls, where as I could burn out 2 Souls with a Forked Bolt and save my Rough//Tumbles for when I'm on my hind legs.

You're preaching to the choir. I know what an activated/triggered ability is, and I've been playing tempo (RUG, BUG, and other iterations) for years. Hell I even played Stiflenought back when that was a relevant approach. It's important to assess when a card is ideal for the current metagame; my conclusion (and tournament results) have shown me that it's not needed right now/here. The players in my area also know how to play around Stifle, making it even less useful if I played it.

Adding more counterspells makes the deck more consistent. RUG loses to a lot of cards that Spell Pierce answers, and obviously it serves double purporse offensively by protecting your threats. You can board most counter-magic out in games 2 and 3 when it's relevant to do so. If countermagic is bad in your metagame, why the hell are you even playing RUG in the first place?

Sulfuric Vortex is in the board, so we need to assess Chain Lightning from a pre-SB, unknown opponent scenario. Chain Lightning is especially useful in game ones since most decks lack the density of removal to prevent your first threat or two from getting in for the golden 9-12 damage, thus making your burn especially potent. There are plenty of decks where I actually don't direct burn at their creatures in game 1 simply because they can be ignored while I race.

Consider for example the Maverick/Junk matchup: your role here is to beat them before they can establish board control with KotR. If you get out an early Delver that can be protected for a few swings, you can largely ignore what they're doing and just sling burn to their face in order to close out before they can make it to the mid-game. Post-board is different since you will have Submerge, but I think trying to answer every threat is nigh impossible in game 1. Thus you're often just better off with Chain Lightning. The whole point of tempo is 'time walking' your opponent with one-for-one answers. Killing your opponent a turn earlier thanks to a heavier burn suite is often a better approach than trying to play control and 2-for-1'ing them all day.

Rough//Tumble doesn't answer Lingering Souls. It only hits ground targets, and is not brought in against Esper Blade. And I'm not saying it's a bad card, just that it's occasionally been awkward. The more that this deck can operate at instant speed, the better I feel. I've even considered Electrickery in that slot.

[jin]

You're preaching to the choir. I know what an activated/triggered ability is, and I've been playing tempo (RUG, BUG, and other iterations) for years. Hell I even played Stiflenought back when that was a relevant approach. It's important to assess when a card is ideal for the current metagame; my conclusion (and tournament results) have shown me that it's not needed right now/here. The players in my area also know how to play around Stifle, making it even less useful if I played it.

Adding more counterspells makes the deck more consistent. RUG loses to a lot of cards that Spell Pierce answers, and obviously it serves double purporse offensively by protecting your threats. You can board most counter-magic out in games 2 and 3 when it's relevant to do so. If countermagic is bad in your metagame, why the hell are you even playing RUG in the first place?

Sulfuric Vortex is in the board, so we need to assess Chain Lightning from a pre-SB, unknown opponent scenario. Chain Lightning is especially useful in game ones since most decks lack the density of removal to prevent your first threat or two from getting in for the golden 9-12 damage, thus making your burn especially potent. There are plenty of decks where I actually don't direct burn at their creatures in game 1 simply because they can be ignored while I race.

Consider for example the Maverick/Junk matchup: your role here is to beat them before they can establish board control with KotR. If you get out an early Delver that can be protected for a few swings, you can largely ignore what they're doing and just sling burn to their face in order to close out before they can make it to the mid-game. Post-board is different since you will have Submerge, but I think trying to answer every threat is nigh impossible in game 1. Thus you're often just better off with Chain Lightning. The whole point of tempo is 'time walking' your opponent with one-for-one answers. Killing your opponent a turn earlier thanks to a heavier burn suite is often a better approach than trying to play control and 2-for-1'ing them all day.

Rough//Tumble doesn't answer Lingering Souls. It only hits ground targets, and is not brought in against Esper Blade. And I'm not saying it's a bad card, just that it's occasionally been awkward. The more that this deck can operate at instant speed, the better I feel. I've even considered Electrickery in that slot.

Adding counter magic does raise consistency, but I haven't found any consistency issues with my current build as the 9 cantrips + fetch lands have enough digging power to find the cards necessary for any particular situation. I'm not saying counter magic is bad specifically to my metagame. I'm saying counter magic is growing worse in general. Wizard of the Coast is printing a lot of cards to disrupt the dominance of counter magic such as strong accelerants (Noble Hierarch, Deathrite Shaman), strong tutors (GSZ), strong hate against counter magic (Silence, Supreme Verdict, Abrupt Decay, Krosan Grip, Shardless Agent), and strong disruption spells (Thoughtseize, Liliana of the Veil, Inquisition of Koseilik). Every colour has a way to disrupt Blue's counter magic now, so I feel that if we become too reliant on that, that may become a weakness more than a strength. Spell Pierce is also worse without Stifle.

Many decks are packing Abrupt Decay/Swords to Plowshare/Lightning Bolt. Some decks are playing Path to Exile, Chain Lightning, Dismember and Forked Bolt. I wouldn't say that "most" decks have a lack of removal. I'd say the opposite. Maybe you play in a combo heavy metagame.

The part I bolded, I must apologize. I responded in a hurry and was not thinking about that particular comment. You are right about that, Rough//Tumble does not come in against Esperblade.

[wcm8]

Spell Pierce is also worse without Stifle.

Many decks are packing Abrupt Decay/Swords to Plowshare/Lightning Bolt. Some decks are playing Path to Exile, Chain Lightning, Dismember and Forked Bolt. I wouldn't say that "most" decks have a lack of removal. I'd say the opposite. Maybe you play in a combo heavy metagame.

Spell Pierce is still fine without Stifle. Your opponent is still going to be casting their cards in the first several turns. You're still backing it up with Wasteland. If your UWx opponent has made it to 6 lands to pay for Pierce on their Jace, you have bigger problems and have likely already lost that game.

I run 7 removal maindeck, so I have a good shot of killing a turn 1/2 Deathrite. He's a threat that needs to die upon sight.

GSZ gets countered by Spell Pierce.

Silence is played in combo decks, where Pierce is amazing.

Against targeted discard and Liliana, Spell Pierce is exactly what you want. FoW is weaker here, which is why I usually board it out against decks that run Iniquisition/Seize but usually still keep in Pierce, possibly even bringing in the 4th.

Many decks are only playing 4-5 removal spells in their main deck. This is what I meant by lower removal density in game one. Post board keeping a threat on board is harder since most sideboards run additional removal (often 8+ removal spells to deal with in the post-board). Decks that are playing uncounterable and quality removal like Abrupt Decay or Supreme Verdict are the same decks you're bringing in Sulfuric Vortex. It's not like I'm ignorant to this issue. But they're also the same decks that I'm happier to have Chain Lightning over Forked Bolt. One important reason is that it's an answer to Jace -- he either becomes a 4 mana Brainstorm or Unsummon, or they start ramping with Fateseal which is not as big of a deal for RUG.

edit: to further illustrate my point, check out this tournament link. The top two slots were RUG, and the winning deck played the Saito list. http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10216&iddeck=74442

[Goddik]

Hey guys.

It is a very interesting discussion and i feel both of you make valid comments. In my experience stifle is primarily an anti control card. Pierce is better against combo and both are semi-dead against aggro. I also have personally always experienced higher win rates with the card in my deck as it allows canadian to "go unfair" in a way that pierce doest.

In terms of the current meta, stifle is ridiculous against the BUG decks.

[jin]

Spell Pierce is still fine without Stifle. Your opponent is still going to be casting their cards in the first several turns. You're still backing it up with Wasteland. If your UWx opponent has made it to 6 lands to pay for Pierce on their Jace, you have bigger problems and have likely already lost that game.

I run 7 removal maindeck, so I have a good shot of killing a turn 1/2 Deathrite. He's a threat that needs to die upon sight.

GSZ gets countered by Spell Pierce.

Silence is played in combo decks, where Pierce is amazing.

Against targeted discard and Liliana, Spell Pierce is exactly what you want. FoW is weaker here, which is why I usually board it out against decks that run Iniquisition/Seize but usually still keep in Pierce, possibly even bringing in the 4th.

Many decks are only playing 4-5 removal spells in their main deck. This is what I meant by lower removal density in game one. Post board keeping a threat on board is harder since most sideboards run additional removal (often 8+ removal spells to deal with in the post-board). Decks that are playing uncounterable and quality removal like Abrupt Decay or Supreme Verdict are the same decks you're bringing in Sulfuric Vortex. It's not like I'm ignorant to this issue. But they're also the same decks that I'm happier to have Chain Lightning over Forked Bolt. One important reason is that it's an answer to Jace -- he either becomes a 4 mana Brainstorm or Unsummon, or they start ramping with Fateseal which is not as big of a deal for RUG.

edit: to further illustrate my point, check out this tournament link. The top two slots were RUG, and the winning deck played the Saito list. http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10216&iddeck=74442

I also run 7 removal preboard, and we have fairly similar boardind strategies. However, I usually board out FOW and keep Spell Snare as Spell Snare shuts down Tarmogoyf and Hymn to Tourach. Inquisition and Thoughtseize aren't too relevant as it might take a burn or cantrip, but rarely works in their favor as Brainstorm is excellent in hiding cards. In my experience, decks that play Abrupt Decay play some number of Swords to Plowshare/Lightning bolt as well. Decks that play Supreme Verdict play Detension Sphere/Swords to Plowshare and sometimes Vindicate. I just don't agree with you on how much removal other decks are packing and the ability of Staticaster to live through all of it. Spell Pierce might keep some of your creatures alive, but I think if you dedicate resources to trade one for one to keep some of your creatures alive, you are on the defensive. Nimble Mongoose naturally dodges removal and unless it is a sweeper, I woudln't consider countering it, and since Supreme Verdict and Terminus both play around Spell Pierce, I wouldn't consider playing them.

It's very normal for modern day control decks to get to 6 lands as they run a heavy basic count. At least they do in my meta game. Most Blue based control decks run upwards of 4-5 basic lands. Stifling their fetch lands is great here; Spell Pierce... no so much.


Hey guys.

It is a very interesting discussion and i feel both of you make valid comments. In my experience stifle is primarily an anti control card. Pierce is better against combo and both are semi-dead against aggro. I also have personally always experienced higher win rates with the card in my deck as it allows canadian to "go unfair" in a way that pierce doest.

In terms of the current meta, stifle is ridiculous against the BUG decks.


I think Stifle is quite good against Cascade also.

[Milen]

This is indeed a great discussion!

Jin would you mind posting a short-hand version of deck list so it is easier to compare with what "wcm8" is running. Maybe somemething similar to this? Thanks!



The Saito list is thus:

19 Lands (3/3 volc/trop, 4 waste, 9 fetch)
12 threats (4/4/4 goyf/goose/delver)
7 burn (4 bolt, 3 chain lightning)
10 filter (4/4/2 bstorm/ponder/t scour)
12 counters (4/3/3/2 daze/fow/pierce/snare)

SB:
3 vortex
2 reb
4 submerge
1 loam
1 grudge
1 pierce
1 fow
2 rough//tumble (which I changed to Staticaster)

[catmint]

Since I play Canadian there has not been a time where I thought Stifle is an option to cut. When SCG hivemind played without them that was outright worse and my explanation why it took them so long to figure it out is a massive group thinking-syndrome. These days Stifle is not as important as it used to be for E. explosives or Miracle triggers, but BUG and Jund have to be punished for playing a lot more expensive spells and cutting stifle feels like dropping my primary reason to play this deck over going on BUG, Jund myself. Stifle is also really good against liliana & cascade – yes card disadvantage but still better than letting it resolve and playing a thought scour EOT.

Of course if you want to denial mana you have to kill deathrite, which makes me not play less than 7 removal spells maindeck (actually what I always used to play because back those days mother was the issue), but it might be even correct to go to 8 removal slots putting a force to the SB or something. What I am concerned in the removal slos is Submerge. Especially Jund with 4 Grove can regularly play around it and then a simple tarmogoyf becomes a real issue. More Dismember could be a thing, but I also like Sulfuric Vortex which makes self-inflicted damage worse. Not having Submerge as a reliable tempo swinger is a huge pain and is the problem I am focusing on.

That beeing said: If everybody in your local meta knows what you are on in G1 that is a difference than beeing in a big tournament where your opponent has probably no clue. For this scenario (small local meta) you can do anything to surprise imo, but that is a different kind of thinking than what is important for a community figuring out what is the best build overall.

[jin]

This is indeed a great discussion!

Jin would you mind posting a short-hand version of deck list so it is easier to compare with what "wcm8" is running. Maybe somemething similar to this? Thanks!

My main deck is based off of Ryan Overturf's list from last year linked here: http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=45362
My SB currently is:
1x FOW
2x Spell Pierce
2x Sulfuric Vortex
2x Submerge
2x Rough // Tumble
1x Sulfur Elemental
4x Tormod's Crypt (Dredge is horrible match up; there is Dredge in my metagame)
1x Ancient Grudge

My SB is less counter heavy than his as I feel that REB and BEB fill the same role as Spell Pierce. My SB is also tuned for bad match ups and helping match ups that are 50/50. I have Ancient Grudge and Sulfur Elemental for Esperblade. Sulfuric Vortex also comes in. Submerge for the green match ups as well as Sulfuric Vortex. I have 3x counter magic for combo decks and 4x graveyard hate for Life from the Loam and Ichorid decks. I play Rough//Tumble for tribal decks.

I used to run a higher Submerge count, but I've found that to be ineffective as drawing too many just stalls out the game. I find that holding onto Submerge for a timely removal spell is much more effective so I've shaved down on the Submerges. I'd love to try to fit in one more Sulfuric Vortex, but I haven't found the room for that yet. I might consider cutting the Ancient Grudge, but the abundance of Ensnaring Bridge has stopped me from doing so. Any green Sword of X/Y are also scary. I think the Ancient Grudge will stay for now.

What I board out usually is counter magic depending on if I'm on the play or on the draw. Like wcm8 says, it becomes a much more aggressive and threat dense deck post board. The beauty about Overturf's deck list is that boarding is such an easy task. Boarding out 4 cards for 4 cards is as simple as taking out Daze + Thoughtscour or Force of Will + Thoughtscour depending if you are on the play or on the draw. Against combo, I take out the Thought Scour + the Dismember and a Stifle. I like to keep my burns in to keep the deck aggressive. I also take out the 2x Forked Bolt for 2x Rough // Tumble if they are playing Storm with red.

[wcm8]

If everybody in your local meta knows what you are on in G1 that is a difference than beeing in a big tournament where your opponent has probably no clue. For this scenario (small local meta) you can do anything to surprise imo, but that is a different kind of thinking than what is important for a community figuring out what is the best build overall.

This is true, however, going Trop -> Mongoose or Volc -> Delver leaves little question in your opponent's mind about what deck you're playing. Most decks in Legacy let you know what archetype they are in the first couple turns. Aside from game 1 mulliganing decisions, the thing you're talking about is a non-issue.

This is why when I was playing Stifle I specifically used Polluted Delta and Flooded Strand as my fetchlands of choice, since it'd make the opponent less likely to assume their first fetch would end up being a Stifle casualty. Now that I'm not playing Stifle, I specifically use Misty Rainforest and Scalding Tarn to put that fear into my opponent's mind.

My suggestions are for the current East Coast metagame, but I think this build would do fine just about anywhere. After all, Saito top 16'd GP Denver with it, got first in a GP Sydney side event, and the same build has been performing elsewhere. (And not that this should be a big deal, but it's also better against 'less developed' metagames (places with more budget-y mono-color aggro decks) since Stifle's value goes way down, and Chain Lightning's value goes way up.)

RUG players should know that Stifle and Daze have a 'ghost effect' against many opponents. Whether they are actually in your hand (or even deck) or not, many players will still double-guess themselves about whether to play around the cards or just play into them. This is a huge advantage, because either way you're gaining a bluff advantage with their 'spectral haunting' that many other decks in the format simply don't have. (It's also great when they *do* play around Daze, only to get their 3rd turn Stoneforge Snare'd :D).

RUG is one of the most skill intensive decks, and it rewards tight play. It's arguably the best 'Brainstorm deck' in the format since it operates on 1-2 lands and has a strong game against nearly every archetype. Games are often won and lost on a razor-thin edge. There's a psychological aspect to playing the deck that makes it feel a bit more like playing poker, except that you have access to the trump cards and your opponents don't.

[ImpinAintEasy]

I was an anti-stifle guy for awhile, but recently went back to it. I was playing at SCG Cincy two weekends ago and faced the following scenario: Opponent Lands player at 6 life, and maze on board. He was going to stablize next turn with Loam and multiple wastelands into tabernacle to clear my board and take me off mana. Before attacking I brainstorm and find stifle. I obv stifle the maze trigger and win. Could I have won that match after that turn, maybe, maybe not, but it would of been much harder to find land and bolt and him not having zuran orb. To me stifle is still very very good right now, hits so many things outside of obv wasteland and fetchlands. Plus imho, attacking mana bases against bug decks is a very effective strategy.

I think both of you have very valid points, in the end it really is what you feel more comfortable with. I also lost a match to Michael Tabler (high tide) with him at 2 life, had I been running scour to speed up my goose or possible chain instead of forked, I would of been smiling at victory instead of smelling that oh so close defeat.

I think people take way to much stock in over metagaming. Is metagaming important, yes, but being comfortable with your 60 is far more important because you will feel confident and the mental aspect of Magic far outweighs card choices in many cases.

Having said all that garbage, I'm curious what you guys think about keeping Force in your 60 during mirror matches. I played and lost to Ben Weinburg in that same tournament, but a timely force on my nimble seemed to win him the game. I asked him about his choice and he was of the opinion that whoever wins the nimble war would win the match. I understand his logic, but was curious how everyone else sides in the mirror.

[firstshot]

My current list is:

18lands(6 fetch)

12 creatures
4 brainstorm
4 ponder
4 daze
4 stifle
4 spell snare
4 force of will
4 lightning bolt
1 dismember(could also be a chain lightning. But I'm also overreacting to losing to tombstalker)
1 thought scour

I'm leaning towards cutting the 4th snare for a 2nd scour or a chain lightning.

Current SB(but always in flux)
1 krosan grip
1 ancient grudge(might become 2nd grip)
2 sulfur elemental(LOL@ statiscaster)
2 spell pierce
2 pyroblast
2 rough/tumble
3 submerge
2 grafdiggers cage/sulfuric vortex

For the mirror I am currently boarding
+2 pyroblast
+3 submerge
-1 Lightning bolt
-2 daze on draw
-2 FOW(all 4 on play)

[GoblinZ]

I used to play Canadian Thresh for some time without stifle(3 spell pierce 2 snare 2 thought scour), but I too go back to the version with stifle. I think Rug with stifle is much better in Jund match up.

I am considering cutting one goyf (actually I used to play rug with 3 goyf) for the 3rd spell peirce, or one more burn spell( I have 6 now). So what do you think?

[Ziveeman]

I was an anti-stifle guy for awhile, but recently went back to it. I was playing at SCG Cincy two weekends ago and faced the following scenario: Opponent Lands player at 6 life, and maze on board. He was going to stablize next turn with Loam and multiple wastelands into tabernacle to clear my board and take me off mana. Before attacking I brainstorm and find stifle. I obv stifle the maze trigger and win. Could I have won that match after that turn, maybe, maybe not, but it would of been much harder to find land and bolt and him not having zuran orb. To me stifle is still very very good right now, hits so many things outside of obv wasteland and fetchlands. Plus imho, attacking mana bases against bug decks is a very effective strategy.

I think both of you have very valid points, in the end it really is what you feel more comfortable with. I also lost a match to Michael Tabler (high tide) with him at 2 life, had I been running scour to speed up my goose or possible chain instead of forked, I would of been smiling at victory instead of smelling that oh so close defeat.

I think people take way to much stock in over metagaming. Is metagaming important, yes, but being comfortable with your 60 is far more important because you will feel confident and the mental aspect of Magic far outweighs card choices in many cases.

Having said all that garbage, I'm curious what you guys think about keeping Force in your 60 during mirror matches. I played and lost to Ben Weinburg in that same tournament, but a timely force on my nimble seemed to win him the game. I asked him about his choice and he was of the opinion that whoever wins the nimble war would win the match. I understand his logic, but was curious how everyone else sides in the mirror.

I agree. Forked Bolt vs Chain Lightning, Thought Scour vs no Thought Scour, Spell Pierce vs Stifle, etc are all personal choices. They've all been proven to be solid choices, so it's really a matter of what you prefer.

And as for Force of Will in the mirror match, I tend to keep two in on the draw at least. I agree with Ben. Nimble Mongoose is the most important creature in the mirror. Tarmogoyf gets hit by both Submerge and Spell Snare, so as long as you can keep your opponent off Tarmogoyf, your Mongoose will probably get there.

[jin]

I was an anti-stifle guy for awhile, but recently went back to it. I was playing at SCG Cincy two weekends ago and faced the following scenario: Opponent Lands player at 6 life, and maze on board. He was going to stablize next turn with Loam and multiple wastelands into tabernacle to clear my board and take me off mana. Before attacking I brainstorm and find stifle. I obv stifle the maze trigger and win. Could I have won that match after that turn, maybe, maybe not, but it would of been much harder to find land and bolt and him not having zuran orb. To me stifle is still very very good right now, hits so many things outside of obv wasteland and fetchlands. Plus imho, attacking mana bases against bug decks is a very effective strategy.

I think both of you have very valid points, in the end it really is what you feel more comfortable with. I also lost a match to Michael Tabler (high tide) with him at 2 life, had I been running scour to speed up my goose or possible chain instead of forked, I would of been smiling at victory instead of smelling that oh so close defeat.

I think people take way to much stock in over metagaming. Is metagaming important, yes, but being comfortable with your 60 is far more important because you will feel confident and the mental aspect of Magic far outweighs card choices in many cases.

Having said all that garbage, I'm curious what you guys think about keeping Force in your 60 during mirror matches. I played and lost to Ben Weinburg in that same tournament, but a timely force on my nimble seemed to win him the game. I asked him about his choice and he was of the opinion that whoever wins the nimble war would win the match. I understand his logic, but was curious how everyone else sides in the mirror.

Bolded for truth. I think I would still take out the FOW. The card disadvantage is far too great unless your 75 runs sylvan library. I'd bring in submerge, but probably spell pierce as well since a spell pierce is pretty much a hard counter against tempo thresh. I think it would have protected your goose from FOW. I'd also use spell pierce to stop removal.

[wcm8]

I personally have never liked keeping FoW in when playing the mirror.

I generally SB like so:

-4 FoW
-3 Spell Pierce

+4 Submerge
+1 Loam
+2 REB/Pyro

I feel that Daze is good, even on the draw. It will help protect your threats, lands, and counters their threats. I also love to be able to tap out for a turn 2 Tarmogoyf, win the counter war with Daze, and return the Tropical to my hand -- thus neutralizing opposing Submerges. I occasionally cut a Daze or two on the draw and leave Spell Pierce in.

I usually try to save Submerge for the right time if I can afford to do so -- in response to a fetch, with counter backup, or with a Thought Scour in hand. Sometimes I've even used it on my own Tarmogoyf in response to my opponent's lethal Bolt.

Tight play helps, but sometimes the mirror just comes down to who draws better, especially if both players are equally skilled. Dealing with 2 early flipped Delvers protected by counters is tough for ANY deck to deal with. So is getting your early lands Wasted. If I were extremely concerned with the mirror, I would make some adjustments to the 75 -- maybe a basic Island, Scavenging Ooze, Dismember, more REBs, or Hidden Gibbons.

[Sturtzilla]

-4 FoW
-3 Spell Pierce

+4 Submerge
+1 Loam
+2 REB/Pyro

This is typically what I do in the mirror as well. It has worked for me really well. wcm8 hit the nail right on the head. The mirror is so close that many times your draw just can't beat an opposing draw. That, by no means, is a reason to play sloppy, but that is just how the game works sometimes. Hidden Gibbons is sick tech for the mirror. There were a few weeks out here at my local shop where there were like 4-5 RUG lists out of 12-16 people. So I ran them back then. It is stupid good. Either you essentially get to play a few extra Goyfs, or your opponent holds back their spells.

[jin]

The reason why I don't run REB in my SB, even if it is such a great SB card is that I feel it is redundant with Spell Pierce. It's definitely more powerful than Spell Pierce, but Spell Pierce is more versatile. I just can't seem to find the room for both REB and Spell Pierce in my SB.

[Sturtzilla]

The reason why I don't run REB in my SB, even if it is such a great SB card is that I feel it is redundant with Spell Pierce. It's definitely more powerful than Spell Pierce, but Spell Pierce is more versatile. I just can't seem to find the room for both REB and Spell Pierce in my SB.

Spell Pierce can be played around fairly easily by most decks, it isn't a hard counter. Additionally it doesn't kill resolved Delvers in the mirror and pseudo-mirrors.

[GoblinZ]

Spell Pierce can be played around fairly easily by most decks, it isn't a hard counter. Additionally it doesn't kill resolved Delvers in the mirror and pseudo-mirrors.

I'd rather to side 4 fow and 2 spell snare out for submerge, REB and loam. I donnot think spell snare is relevant in the mirror

[jin]

Spell Pierce can be played around fairly easily by most decks, it isn't a hard counter. Additionally it doesn't kill resolved Delvers in the mirror and pseudo-mirrors.

Spell Pierce is a hard counter in the mirror as well as against many combo decks. Red Blast is only applicable to match ups Tempo Thresh is already good in such as blue mirror. It's also good against Show and Tell decks, but so is Spell Pierce. Spell Pierce goes along with Tempo Thresh game plan where you try to restrict their resources. You wouldn't need to bring in Spell Pierce versus Blue Control match ups since you play a higher threat density rather than counter magic.

Any removal played in Tempo Thresh can kill Delver of Secrets. That seems somewhat minor. I'm not saying REB is not powerful, I'm just saying it isn't better than Spell Pierce as a SB card because it doesn't help with all bad match ups.


I'd rather to side 4 fow and 2 spell snare out for submerge, REB and loam. I donnot think spell snare is relevant in the mirror

Tarmogoyf

[GoblinZ]

4 submerge is enough for dealing with goyf, spell pierce can counter cantrips and stifle while spell snare is only useful with goyf when you donnot have submerge

[GoblinZ]

[QUOTE=jin;707069]Spell Pierce is a hard counter in the mirror as well as against many combo decks. Red Blast is only applicable to match ups Tempo Thresh is already good in such as blue mirror. It's also good against Show and Tell decks, but so is Spell Pierce. Spell Pierce goes along with Tempo Thresh game plan where you try to restrict their resources. You wouldn't need to bring in Spell Pierce versus Blue Control match ups since you play a higher threat density rather than counter magic.

Any removal played in Tempo Thresh can kill Delver of Secrets. That seems somewhat minor. I'm not saying REB is not powerful, I'm just saying it isn't better than Spell Pierce as a SB card because it doesn't help with all bad match ups.

Otherwise, my point is that spell pierce and REB are not uncompatible. It is not a either/or question in my opinion. I have 2 pierce in the main and one spell pierce and 2 REB in the sb. I think it is definitely right to side REB. Even though spell pierce is good against mirror, I will not bring more spell pierce in.

[jin]

Otherwise, my point is that spell pierce and REB are not uncompatible. It is not a either/or question in my opinion. I have 2 pierce in the main and one spell pierce and 2 REB in the sb. I think it is definitely right to side REB. Even though spell pierce is good against mirror, I will not bring more spell pierce in.

Of course not, but would you board OUT spell pierce? I don't play Spell Pierce in the main, so I just board in the ones that I have in my SB since I don't play REB. I just can't fit REB in a SB that has 15 cards. No room, since REB and Spell Pierce fill out similar roles in blue control/combo match ups.

[GoblinZ]

Of course not, but would you board OUT spell pierce? I don't play Spell Pierce in the main, so I just board in the ones that I have in my SB since I don't play REB. I just can't fit REB in a SB that has 15 cards. No room, since REB and Spell Pierce fill out similar roles in blue control/combo match ups.

I may board out one spell pierce and leave one in depending on situation(on the draw or on the play). REB is much better than spell pierce against blade or miracle and the 3rd spell pierce in my sb is prepared for combo.

[jin]

I may board out one spell pierce and leave one in depending on situation(on the draw or on the play). REB is much better than spell pierce against blade or miracle and the 3rd spell pierce in my sb is prepared for combo.

Not really. The only Blue spell that actually really matters is Jace, The Mind Sculptor. Outside of that, you can't disrupt any of their win conditions with REB. You don't stop Entreat the Angels. You don't stop RIP. You don't stop Helm. Against Esperblade, you don't stop SFM. You don't even stop a hard casted Batterskull with REB. I wouldn't even consider bringing it in against those decks unless I didn't have enough things to bring in. Spell Pierce hits all of those and Jace. If you can't choke out their lands to play Spell Pierce efficiently, then I'd pitch it to FOW. In those match ups, I'd rather board in threats like Sulfuric Vortex anyway.


4 submerge is enough for dealing with goyf, spell pierce can counter cantrips and stifle while spell snare is only useful with goyf when you donnot have submerge

Spell Pierce on cantrip? I'd be fine with that if we were playing the mirror. Better that than my burns. Submerge is good, but it's not better than Spell Snare. If played carefully, they can easily get their Tarmogoyf back.

[GoblinZ]

Not really. The only Blue spell that actually really matters is Jace, The Mind Sculptor. Outside of that, you can't disrupt any of their win conditions with REB. You don't stop Entreat the Angels. You don't stop RIP. You don't stop Helm. Against Esperblade, you don't stop SFM. You don't even stop a hard casted Batterskull with REB. I wouldn't even consider bringing it in against those decks unless I didn't have enough things to bring in. Spell Pierce hits all of those and Jace. If you can't choke out their lands to play Spell Pierce efficiently, then I'd pitch it to FOW. In those match ups, I'd rather board in threats like Sulfuric Vortex anyway.



Spell Pierce on cantrip? I'd be fine with that if we were playing the mirror. Better that than my burns.

I think spell piercing on cantrip also depends on situation, some times spell pierce on a brainstorm can make sense.

[wcm8]

The reason why I don't run REB in my SB,

is because you are running a sub-optimal list.

REB and Pyroblast are huge, huge incentives to play RUG. I take it you've never had to play against High Tide, any deck playing Jace, Ancestral Visions, Counterbalance, Merfolk, Vendilion Clique, Submerge, Show and Tell (they play Sol lands for a reason), etc. etc. etc. The only real decision is whether to play *just* two, or more than that.

[jin]

you are running a sub-optimal list.


You run no Stifles in a deck that plays more than 4 soft counters.




REB and Pyroblast are huge, huge incentives to play RUG. I take it you've never had to play against High Tide, any deck playing Jace, Ancestral Visions, Counterbalance, Merfolk, Vendilion Clique, Submerge, Show and Tell (they play Sol lands for a reason), etc. etc. etc. The only real decision is whether to play *just* two, or more than that.

Anybody with experience in the High Tide match up, S&T match up and the Counterbalance match up will know that the battle comes before the turn where the critical blue spells are played. If you are forced to that turn, you've probably lost already. In CB, you are trying to lock them out of resources and beat them down. In High Tide, you are trying to disrupt their sculpting and beat them down.

In other words, REB is a counter spell that only counters blue cards. I run enough counter spells. I don't need another one. Besides Merfolk where it is of relevance, Spell Pierce does the same thing in all of the other match ups. Therefore, REB is not complementary, but redundant.

[blablub]

Hey Guys,

I have a question about Saitos List. Does anyone know his boarding plan against Jund? In Fact i'm interested in the Role of the 3 Sulfuric Vortex. Is he boarding them against Jund?
In which other MatchUps are you boarding Vortex except for the control MatchUp?

thx for help :)

[jin]

Hey Guys,

I have a question about Saitos List. Does anyone know his boarding plan against Jund? In Fact i'm interested in the Role of the 3 Sulfuric Vortex. Is he boarding them against Jund?
In which other MatchUps are you boarding Vortex except for the control MatchUp?

thx for help :)

If a deck's plan is to stop you from dealing damage to them, board in Sulfuric Vortex.

[Milen]

You run no Stifles in a deck that plays more than 4 soft counters.
In other words, REB is a counter spell that only counters blue cards. I run enough counter spells. I don't need another one. Besides Merfolk where it is of relevance, Spell Pierce does the same thing in all of the other match ups. Therefore, REB is not complementary, but redundant.

As you say the battle is the round before they go off, when they are still trying get a good hand, brainstorming, ponder etc. But that means that they are happy with playing a single spell per turn until then. But spell pierce might not be able to stop to the cantrips as they could easily have 3 mana up (decks like High Tide Show&Tell). But REB is a hard counter and if the want to counter that then they are happy to waste resources for that while you save your other counters for the actually fight, when Spell Pierce is more likely to be a hard counter.
I personally love my REBs and currently play with 3 in my SB, although i cut at max one once i optimize my SB.

[Sturtzilla]

REB and Pyroblast are huge, huge incentives to play RUG. I take it you've never had to play against High Tide, any deck playing Jace, Ancestral Visions, Counterbalance, Merfolk, Vendilion Clique, Submerge, Show and Tell (they play Sol lands for a reason), etc. etc. etc. The only real decision is whether to play *just* two, or more than that.


In other words, REB is a counter spell that only counters blue cards.

Don't forget it destroys blue permanents too. That is part of how this discussion began. We were on the topic of regarding how to board versus the mirror. REB/Pyroblast counters half of RUG and can destroy 1/3 of the threats in the deck. Spell Snare counters basically the only other thing that you have to worry about, which is Tarmogoyf.



Spell Pierce is a hard counter in the mirror as well as against many combo decks. Red Blast is only applicable to match ups Tempo Thresh is already good in such as blue mirror.

You might want to check your definition of what a "hard counter" actually is. In some situations Spell Pierce may function as one (normally in the mirror), but if your opponent is patient, especially in combo matchups, it gets quickly outclassed. Furthermore, against Show and Tell variants (which you had mentioned), many of their lands produce double colorless, so all they have to do is drop an extra land and they can pay for you pierce, whereas, REB/Pyro just counter their Show and Tell.


I can't speak for all metas, but mine is very blue heavy. So REB/Pyroblast is basically an auto include, as it helps sure up lots of match ups. Also if tournament results are any indication, REB/Pyroblast have been in the sideboard of the iterations of this deck forever... there is probably a reason for that.

[Megadeus]

You might want to check your definition of what a "hard counter" actually is. In some situations Spell Pierce may function as one (normally in the mirror), but if your opponent is patient, especially in combo matchups, it gets quickly outclassed. Furthermore, against Show and Tell variants (which you had mentioned), many of their lands produce double colorless, so all they have to do is drop an extra land and they can pay for you pierce, whereas, REB/Pyro just counter their Show and Tell.

To be fair though, it isn't like you are a control deck... Your deck is built to put the most efficient threats in the game down and kill them. Sometimes they just do not have the time to be patient.

[blablub]

If a deck's plan is to stop you from dealing damage to them, board in Sulfuric Vortex.

So you think that Vortex is worth to board in against Jund?

[Milen]

So you think that Vortex is worth to board in against Jund?

It is a bit risky as they too have several creatures and can do significant dmg. However one important point is that Vortex stops the Punishing Fire to be recalled as you can not gain life. So they will have less burn spell (if they play Lightning Bolt).

[jin]

As you say the battle is the round before they go off, when they are still trying get a good hand, brainstorming, ponder etc. But that means that they are happy with playing a single spell per turn until then. But spell pierce might not be able to stop to the cantrips as they could easily have 3 mana up (decks like High Tide Show&Tell). But REB is a hard counter and if the want to counter that then they are happy to waste resources for that while you save your other counters for the actually fight, when Spell Pierce is more likely to be a hard counter.
I personally love my REBs and currently play with 3 in my SB, although i cut at max one once i optimize my SB.

Yes, I realize that REB is better because it is unconditional, except that it counters only Blue Spells. Would you say Tempo Thresh has a worse match up against those blue decks mentioned before or Storm combo where Spell Pierce is better? In my experience, REB is pretty weak against Storm combo.


Don't forget it destroys blue permanents too. That is part of how this discussion began. We were on the topic of regarding how to board versus the mirror.

I haven't. As I mentioned in my previous post, the only permanents that really get destroyed by REB are Jace, The Mind Sculptor, Counterbalance and Merfolk. Besides Merfolk, the battle comes before they cast that crucial blue spell. If you let it resolve, you are moving to a defensive position anyway. Therefore, Spell Pierce serves the same function.


REB/Pyroblast counters half of RUG and can destroy 1/3 of the threats in the deck. Spell Snare counters basically the only other thing that you have to worry about, which is Tarmogoyf.

You might want to check your definition of what a "hard counter" actually is. In some situations Spell Pierce may function as one (normally in the mirror), but if your opponent is patient, especially in combo matchups, it gets quickly outclassed. Furthermore, against Show and Tell variants (which you had mentioned), many of their lands produce double colorless, so all they have to do is drop an extra land and they can pay for you pierce, whereas, REB/Pyro just counter their Show and Tell.

I can't speak for all metas, but mine is very blue heavy. So REB/Pyroblast is basically an auto include, as it helps sure up lots of match ups. Also if tournament results are any indication, REB/Pyroblast have been in the sideboard of the iterations of this deck forever... there is probably a reason for that.

I'm not saying REB is a bad card. I'm just saying that I don't see it better than Spell Pierce in many match ups. Given the choice between the 2, I'd choose Spell Pierce every time because 1. I don't run Spell Pierce main, and 2. it's better in more bad match ups for Tempo Thresh.

I don't get it; so you play REB simply because it kills delver? Every removal spell in your deck kills Delver of Secrets. I don't see how that is relevant. I especially don't get the bolded part. Are you saying I'm right about it being a "hard counter" or not? If your Tempo Thresh list doesn't put enough pressure on the opponent, doesn't it mean you've failed as an aggro control deck already? With the help of Delver of Secrets, the combo match up is much easier thanks to the increased clock. A deck that's content with just sitting around should simply lose. The pressure comes from not only the potential of counter magic, but also the threat of dying to board presence and also the choking of resources.


So you think that Vortex is worth to board in against Jund?

It depends on what else you have in the SB, but in short yes. I do, simply because Jund is a slower aggro deck than you. They play a mid-range game and doesn't get damage in until later on. They also do a bit of damage to themselves especially if they rely on their Sylvan library to draw. Although if they have Sylvan Library out, you should start worrying. They do play many Thoughtseizes and fetch lands, so if you can keep a Mongoose swinging, dropping the Vortex isn't a bad idea.

Also bring in Submerge.

[Milen]

I'm not saying REB is a bad card. I'm just saying that I don't see it better than Spell Pierce in many match ups. Given the choice between the 2, I'd choose Spell Pierce every time because 1. I don't run Spell Pierce main, and 2. it's better in more bad match ups for Tempo Thresh.


I think its boils down to the total of 75 cards. If you do not play Spell Pierce in main then yes, as a SB card it is better than REB as it is useful in more match-ups. If you already play Spell Pierce in main and have REB in SB then you can board it in as in some matchups it is better than Spell Pierce. For example in the mirror the two cards do allmost exactly the same thing, with the difference that REB can double as a removal as well for a delver.

[mike1987]

To decks without playing stifles (saito's list), how are your miracles match-up? Beside the dreadful counterbalance, stifle stop miracle triggers which I feel is too good to be given up. Miracles have started to make a come back in my meta as of late (thanks to drs then combo), which i personally feel is one of our toughest match-ups.

[anakyn]

Maybe it's already been discussed, maybe not so I'm asking: what are the opinions about the n° of Daze to play?

I've noticed many lists nowadays play 3 of them instead of 4, while a full set was the most common choice some months ago.

I'm sticking with 4 but maybe there are good reasons to cut 1 of them...

[Sturtzilla]

Yes, I realize that REB is better because it is unconditional, except that it counters only Blue Spells. Would you say Tempo Thresh has a worse match up against those blue decks mentioned before or Storm combo where Spell Pierce is better? In my experience, REB is pretty weak against Storm combo.

This probably depends on the deck... against High Tide REB/Pyro are awesome. Then again if you had Spell Pierces in your main deck your Storm match ups should be better in the first place. You wouldn't have to do as much boarding here.



I haven't. As I mentioned in my previous post, the only permanents that really get destroyed by REB are Jace, The Mind Sculptor, Counterbalance and Merfolk. Besides Merfolk, the battle comes before they cast that crucial blue spell. If you let it resolve, you are moving to a defensive position anyway. Therefore, Spell Pierce serves the same function.

I'm not saying REB is a bad card. I'm just saying that I don't see it better than Spell Pierce in many match ups. Given the choice between the 2, I'd choose Spell Pierce every time because 1. I don't run Spell Pierce main, and 2. it's better in more bad match ups for Tempo Thresh.

I don't get it; so you play REB simply because it kills delver? Every removal spell in your deck kills Delver of Secrets. I don't see how that is relevant. I especially don't get the bolded part. Are you saying I'm right about it being a "hard counter" or not? If your Tempo Thresh list doesn't put enough pressure on the opponent, doesn't it mean you've failed as an aggro control deck already? With the help of Delver of Secrets, the combo match up is much easier thanks to the increased clock. A deck that's content with just sitting around should simply lose. The pressure comes from not only the potential of counter magic, but also the threat of dying to board presence and also the choking of resources.

As far as the mirror, which is what I am concerned about, sure all of our removal already kills delver, but having another spell or two that is a hard counter for the majority of the deck and kills 1/3 of the threats in it seems better than boarding in Spell Pierce to me. Answer this question, which would you rather have (assuming that the mana cost on the two options are the same)?

1) This spell counters half of the spells in opposing deck unless opponent pays :2:.
2) This spell counters half of the spells in opposing deck and can kill 1/3 of the threats in the deck.

REB/Pyroblast are the second option. They do the job better in the first place and have a second mode in the match up. Killing delver is narrow but it is an additional option that could win you the game/match.

Spell Pierce is soft. We rely on it plus our clock to make it situationally unpayable. But that doesn't change the fact that many decks can answer our threats or slow down our clock and make it irrelevant. It doesn't always happen but it can. So saying Spell Pierce is hard is a fallacy.

Then again you should probably have some number of Pierces in your main in the first place.

[wcm8]

To decks without playing stifles (saito's list), how are your miracles match-up? Beside the dreadful counterbalance, stifle stop miracle triggers which I feel is too good to be given up. Miracles have started to make a come back in my meta as of late (thanks to drs then combo), which i personally feel is one of our toughest match-ups.

Miracles is rough, but Sulfuric Vortex makes it very winnable.

Generally I board like this:

-4 Daze (adjust with Spell Pierce if on the play)
-1 Wasteland
-2 Chain Lightning

+3 Vortex
+2 REBs
+1 Force of Will
+1 Spell Pierce (again, depends if on the play or draw)

Consider cutting a Tarmogoyf or two if they are running the Rest in Peace Version, and leave the Chain Lightnings in.

Also bring in Ancient Grudge if they are running Stoneforge Mystic.

Daze becomes incredibly weak in this matchup and they are generally going to play around it. However, if you're on the play you can leave a couple in and cut Spell Pierce instead. They also play around Wasteland, and a second Wasteland could even be cut for more action.

You ideally need to keep a hand which can answer a turn 1 Top. You also don't want to lose to Counterbalance if at all possible, so don't tap out if you have a counterspell that could save you.

Don't expect your creatures to live for long. Just keep them digging for answers and getting a few hits in, throw a burn spell or two their way, and eventually land a Sulfuric Vortex and you should be good to go. This is not a great matchup, and a resolved Counterbalance (especially with a Top) generally means you've lost.

Thought Scour can be used to screw up a Miracle if they're tapped out. It's not quite Stifle, but don't be afraid to use it if you think they've set up a Terminus or Entreat at the end of your turn.

[mike1987]

Miracles is rough, but Sulfuric Vortex makes it very winnable.

Generally I board like this:

-4 Daze (adjust with Spell Pierce if on the play)
-1 Wasteland
-2 Chain Lightning

+3 Vortex
+2 REBs
+1 Force of Will
+1 Spell Pierce (again, depends if on the play or draw)

Consider cutting a Tarmogoyf or two if they are running the Rest in Peace Version, and leave the Chain Lightnings in.

Also bring in Ancient Grudge if they are running Stoneforge Mystic.

Daze becomes incredibly weak in this matchup and they are generally going to play around it. However, if you're on the play you can leave a couple in and cut Spell Pierce instead. They also play around Wasteland, and a second Wasteland could even be cut for more action.

You ideally need to keep a hand which can answer a turn 1 Top. You also don't want to lose to Counterbalance if at all possible, so don't tap out if you have a counterspell that could save you.

Don't expect your creatures to live for long. Just keep them digging for answers and getting a few hits in, throw a burn spell or two their way, and eventually land a Sulfuric Vortex and you should be good to go. This is not a great matchup, and a resolved Counterbalance (especially with a Top) generally means you've lost.

Thought Scour can be used to screw up a Miracle if they're tapped out. It's not quite Stifle, but don't be afraid to use it if you think they've set up a Terminus or Entreat at the end of your turn.


Sweet advice. Yea I am just usually counting on rebs and vortex in game 2. Get a few hits in early and try to land the vortex, hopefully he doesn't race with clique or entreat. I was thinking maybe siding in a few krosan grips to deal with either top or counterbalance, what do you think?

[jin]

I think its boils down to the total of 75 cards. If you do not play Spell Pierce in main then yes, as a SB card it is better than REB as it is useful in more match-ups. If you already play Spell Pierce in main and have REB in SB then you can board it in as in some matchups it is better than Spell Pierce. For example in the mirror the two cards do allmost exactly the same thing, with the difference that REB can double as a removal as well for a delver.

Yes.


Maybe it's already been discussed, maybe not so I'm asking: what are the opinions about the n° of Daze to play?

I've noticed many lists nowadays play 3 of them instead of 4, while a full set was the most common choice some months ago.

I'm sticking with 4 but maybe there are good reasons to cut 1 of them...

If you have 4x Dazes, drawing them in multiples is very likely. Dazes aren't great unless they are choked on mana. Additionally, if you have 2 Dazes at the beginning, you might have a really hot start, or you might be slowed down significantly. Either way, this is bad. Having 1x Daze at the beginning is fine. Additionally drawing Daze in the late game is bad. Drawing multiple Dazes in the late game is terribad. It's better to have more threat density than counter magic. Running 3x Dazes allow drawing Daze early on as well as lowers the chance of multiple Dazes later in the game and in your opening hand.

As of now, I am convinced that 3x Daze is the absolute correct number to run. Of course, your Dazes are supplemented by other counter magic like FOW and either Spell Snare or Spell Pierce.


This probably depends on the deck... against High Tide REB/Pyro are awesome. Then again if you had Spell Pierces in your main deck your Storm match ups should be better in the first place. You wouldn't have to do as much boarding here.

High Tide generally loses to fast aggro decks. I'd rather board in more burns than to board in REB. I don't like Spell Pierce in the main because Spell Pierce versus aggro decks are just bad. Spell Snare is superior there.



As far as the mirror, which is what I am concerned about, sure all of our removal already kills delver, but having another spell or two that is a hard counter for the majority of the deck and kills 1/3 of the threats in it seems better than boarding in Spell Pierce to me. Answer this question, which would you rather have (assuming that the mana cost on the two options are the same)?

1) This spell counters half of the spells in opposing deck unless opponent pays :2:.
2) This spell counters half of the spells in opposing deck and can kill 1/3 of the threats in the deck.

REB/Pyroblast are the second option. They do the job better in the first place and have a second mode in the match up. Killing delver is narrow but it is an additional option that could win you the game/match.

Spell Pierce is soft. We rely on it plus our clock to make it situationally unpayable. But that doesn't change the fact that many decks can answer our threats or slow down our clock and make it irrelevant. It doesn't always happen but it can. So saying Spell Pierce is hard is a fallacy.

Then again you should probably have some number of Pierces in your main in the first place.

I don't like to board heavily in the mirror, since Tempo Thresh is built to defeat
(1) decks that run no basics,
(2) fetch heavy decks and
(3) decks that tap out a lot (AKA Tempo Thresh).

If my deck is already built to defeat decks like Tempo Thresh, I don't see why I need additional removal or counter magic.

Again, I don't feel that Spell Pierce belongs in the main because it is less versatile than Spell Snare. I can't fit both in my MB and keep consistency.

[anakyn]

If you have 4x Dazes, drawing them in multiples is very likely. Dazes aren't great unless they are choked on mana. Additionally, if you have 2 Dazes at the beginning, you might have a really hot start, or you might be slowed down significantly. Either way, this is bad. Having 1x Daze at the beginning is fine. Additionally drawing Daze in the late game is bad. Drawing multiple Dazes in the late game is terribad. It's better to have more threat density than counter magic. Running 3x Dazes allow drawing Daze early on as well as lowers the chance of multiple Dazes later in the game and in your opening hand.

As of now, I am convinced that 3x Daze is the absolute correct number to run. Of course, your Dazes are supplemented by other counter magic like FOW and either Spell Snare or Spell Pierce.


So you are pointing out a reason which isn't related to the meta but to the "Daze mechanic" itself.
Then I'm asking myself why RUG players have chosen 4 Dazes for an entire year (or more) before someone decided to run 3, if the reason isn't related to the meta (and neither to the deck itself, which is pretty the same).

Your logic is sound, but I found myself always wanting a Daze in my opening hand. It is too important to protect my first turn Delver or to negate their first turn play and slowing them down. Yes I could use Force to do the same, but generally I don't wanna lose 2 cards so soon just to negate a 1-cc spell.

Drawing a second Daze doesn't always suck to be honest. Playing 4 Wastelands means a second Daze could negate also a 2nd turn play after the 1st one.

Drawing more than 2 and/or drawing it late game sucks, that's true. But it's not completely useless as long as you can pitch it for Force, and vs decks like Storm even a late game Daze can be decisive.

I can understand boarding them out when we are on the draw though.


Since I'm already playing 12 creature + 6 Burn spells, if I had to cut a Daze I'd probably use the 3rd Pierce in its place.




Again, I don't feel that Spell Pierce belongs in the main because it is less versatile than Spell Snare. I can't fit both in my MB and keep consistency.


My opinion is exactly the opposite :D
I consider Pierce as a generally a better MB choice cause I feel it's more versatile.

Usually I played 3x Pierce + 1x Snare, but right now I'm splitting them 2+2 cause of all the Jund decks around.

[ironclad8690]

Hey Guys,

Can someone enlighten me as to why someone would split all of their fetch lands up instead of just having 4x 4x 3x?

I am always seeing lists with 2 polluted delta, 2 misty rainforest, 1 wooded foothills, 1 flooded strand etc.

[Milen]

Hey Guys,

Can someone enlighten me as to why someone would split all of their fetch lands up instead of just having 4x 4x 3x?

I am always seeing lists with 2 polluted delta, 2 misty rainforest, 1 wooded foothills, 1 flooded strand etc.

Combination of Surgical Extraction and whatever you have available at home, so not everyone does that :tongue:

[ptahetep]

Hey Guys,

Can someone enlighten me as to why someone would split all of their fetch lands up instead of just having 4x 4x 3x?

I am always seeing lists with 2 polluted delta, 2 misty rainforest, 1 wooded foothills, 1 flooded strand etc.


Hi, assuming you own all the fetchs you need, if you go back in thread, you will find what I think can be summarized by the following plans:
1- Stifle plan: You play stifle and you want your opponent to think you play another deck at the beginning of game 1. This is where wooded foothills, flooded strand are selected.
2- "No-stifle" plan: You want my opponent to guess you are playing RUG, play around stifle even if you do not have any: Rainforest and scalding tarn.
3- "I am afraid of extirpate effect" plan: You play with a mix of fetch to minimize the impact of getting extracted or extirpated because they is a significant number of these deck in your meta.
Hope this helps.

[jin]

So you are pointing out a reason which isn't related to the meta but to the "Daze mechanic" itself.
Then I'm asking myself why RUG players have chosen 4 Dazes for an entire year (or more) before someone decided to run 3, if the reason isn't related to the meta (and neither to the deck itself, which is pretty the same).

Your logic is sound, but I found myself always wanting a Daze in my opening hand. It is too important to protect my first turn Delver or to negate their first turn play and slowing them down. Yes I could use Force to do the same, but generally I don't wanna lose 2 cards so soon just to negate a 1-cc spell.

Drawing a second Daze doesn't always suck to be honest. Playing 4 Wastelands means a second Daze could negate also a 2nd turn play after the 1st one.

Drawing more than 2 and/or drawing it late game sucks, that's true. But it's not completely useless as long as you can pitch it for Force, and vs decks like Storm even a late game Daze can be decisive.

I can understand boarding them out when we are on the draw though.


Since I'm already playing 12 creature + 6 Burn spells, if I had to cut a Daze I'd probably use the 3rd Pierce in its place.


The only thing that changed causing a need to move to 3x Dazes instead of 4x Dazes is Delver of Secrets. We had to make room for it, and Delver is simply put, better than a 4th Daze. It's also why Tempo Thresh's bounce/Vendilion Clique Slots are now no longer open and why we lost a removal spell. Before we played 4x Fire/Ice and 4x Lightning Bolt. Now it's usually 7 removal, but that's fine since we can be more aggressive.



My opinion is exactly the opposite :D
I consider Pierce as a generally a better MB choice cause I feel it's more versatile.

Usually I played 3x Pierce + 1x Snare, but right now I'm splitting them 2+2 cause of all the Jund decks around.


Spell Snare hits any target in any deck running 2cmc cards. Spell Pierce sucks against Aggro Decks.


Hey Guys,

Can someone enlighten me as to why someone would split all of their fetch lands up instead of just having 4x 4x 3x?

I am always seeing lists with 2 polluted delta, 2 misty rainforest, 1 wooded foothills, 1 flooded strand etc.

Additionally to all of the other's comments, if they have nothing else to bring in, you don't want to make their Pithing Needle an actual relevant card.

[undone]

So I've got an idea that's probably terrible but I'm going to test it. I want to see how good either 2 or 4 gitaxian probe are. The information provided is very important and it interacts favorably with other cantrips. Information with Snare/stifle/bolt/delver/daze can be the difference between a substantial amount of damage or completely crippling a manabase.

[Demonic_Attorney]

My opinion is exactly the opposite :D
I consider Pierce as a generally a better MB choice cause I feel it's more versatile.

Usually I played 3x Pierce + 1x Snare, but right now I'm splitting them 2+2 cause of all the Jund decks around.

I concur, Spell Pierce is much more versatile, has more synergy in this deck and is overall more flexible by giving better reach in the present metagame right now.

[phazonmutant]

Hey guys. I've been watching the discussion develop over the past couple pages and while I'm not an experienced Thresh pilot, I've played with it in testing and lots against it.

From the combo player's perspective, jin is vastly underrating REB against storm combo. Brainstorm is at its filthiest & most degenerate in either Thresh or fast combo like storm, so REB'ing it can be devastating. Hitting early Ponders often will mean that they can't go off with protection (or at all) either by denying mana or pieces. Obviously it's good against Show and Tell as well. Spell Pierce is actually not that hard to play around as I'm sure many of you guys have experienced.

Snare is a very good card against most combo decks (exception being Sneak and Show) as well as every fair deck right now. Seems odd to not play a couple.

I'm surprised to see suggestions to play only 3 Daze in the main. Every time I test Thresh all I want to draw are Daze to pick up lands and Brainstorm to put them away.

Just my thoughts on some of the stuff. Definitely could be wrong, but thought it might help discussion.

[wcm8]

words

Agreed on everything. 4 Daze is definitely the correct choice for this deck, as is (at least currently) playing 2-3 Spell Snare. Not playing 2+ REB/Pyroblast in the SB is just bad.

I actually had some time to test against UWr Miracles. Yes, they have some trumps (e.g. Rest in Peace + Energy Field, SFM -> Batterskull, SDT + Counterbalance, Elspeth), but as long as you can disrupt the chain via counterspells, your creatures and burn can generally close out before they can re-establish board control. Countering SDT is probably the most important thing to do in the early game, so if the choice on turn 1 is between leaving up Spell Pierce or deploying a threat, I'd probably opt for the former over the latter. The matchup didn't feel as hopeless as I would have expected.

[Sturtzilla]

Agreed on everything. 4 Daze is definitely the correct choice for this deck, as is (at least currently) playing 2-3 Spell Snare. Not playing 2+ REB/Pyroblast in the SB is just bad.

Yep... This is all true. 4 Dazes can be clunky, especially if you end up with more than one and additionally if your opponent is playing around them. Yet in these scenarios, you can pitch them to FoW or Brainstorm them back and shuffle them away. If your opponent played around them, then they (the Dazes) essentially bought you time without costing you cards or mana. So the card may not do exactly what it says in the text box, but it is still gaining you some advantage, and as such is not truly dead.



I actually had some time to test against UWr Miracles. Yes, they have some trumps (e.g. Rest in Peace + Energy Field, SFM -> Batterskull, SDT + Counterbalance, Elspeth), but as long as you can disrupt the chain via counterspells, your creatures and burn can generally close out before they can re-establish board control. Countering SDT is probably the most important thing to do in the early game, so if the choice on turn 1 is between leaving up Spell Pierce or deploying a threat, I'd probably opt for the former over the latter. The matchup didn't feel as hopeless as I would have expected.

My meta used to be flooded with Miracles of all flavors. It really isn't that bad. If you can stop a SDT, you are generally ahead by a good bit as our draws are better. Stifle is pretty awesome in this MU as it can stop Miracle triggers in addition to hindering land development. Both of these items are crucial for them to beat us. However, if you run Thought Scour and more burn (Chain Lightning), a la Saito, then you can probably burn them out. You also can mess with their Miracle tiggers, and Top stacking with your Scours. It can be a tough match up but it is very winnable. Vortex and REB/Pryo are pretty awesome out of the board. I usually have a Krosan Grip or two as well. There are a plethora of targets Counterbalance, Top, if you are playing the enchantment version, then Energy Field, and RiP, possibly Helm. So it is an all-star as well. Before the Helm-combo was all the rage and everyone was just using Jace and Entreat to win, I had 1-2 Echoing Truth in my board. Timed right, it can mean you opponent can't beat you with Jace, and 1-for-1's with Entreat. Since their deck is so light on threats, it can buy you a good bit of time, this is assuming that you are not lock out by Counter-Top/Efield-RiP. So Echoing Truth might be worht consideration if you are seeing a lot of the original Entreat-Jace builds. Additionally it is pretty funny/good against Dredge for Zombie tokens/Grave Trolls and Storm if they use Empty the Warrens. These are narrow considerations but other real decks where the card is good.

[catmint]

Why would the miracle matchup feel hopeless?
Against a miracle version without Stoneforge you only have a couple of key-cards to worry about. Disrupting the manbase is usually not easily possible (and not necessary except spell pierce becomes awkward) but Stifle for RIP enter the battefield trigger or miracles is still a very valuable card. Not overcommiting, handling Jace, countering Entreat (or Terminus) + using Sulfuric Vortex - I feel comfortable with this matchup.

Edit: I have to be faster with my posts - damn you Sturtzilla. :cool:

[Sturtzilla]

Why would the miracle matchup feel hopeless?
Against a miracle version without Stoneforge you only have a couple of key-cards to worry about. Disrupting the manbase is usually not easily possible (and not necessary except spell pierce becomes awkward) but Stifle for RIP enter the battefield trigger or miracles is still a very valuable card. Not overcommiting, handling Jace, countering Entreat (or Terminus) + using Sulfuric Vortex - I feel comfortable with this matchup.

On paper the Miracles looks pretty rough to unwinnable, but in practice we can typically just race them as long as we disrupt a key card here or there. Awesome thought on RiP enters battlefield trigger. I guess I knew that I could do that, but I never actually have. Probably a good thought to keep in mind if you are a Stifle version pilot.

I think the Enchanment version is a lot harder, as they have Jace, Entreat, RiP, EField, Counterbalance, Top, and Helm, which are all bad for us if they resolve. Spell Pierce and Daze gain us a lot of ground as do REB/Pyro and Vortex out of the board, but it is still tough because their density of spell that we need to counter is higher.



Edit: I have to be faster with my posts - damn you Sturtzilla. :cool:

Sorry dude! :laugh:

[Ziveeman]

So I've got an idea that's probably terrible but I'm going to test it. I want to see how good either 2 or 4 gitaxian probe are. The information provided is very important and it interacts favorably with other cantrips. Information with Snare/stifle/bolt/delver/daze can be the difference between a substantial amount of damage or completely crippling a manabase.

I played with it for awhile and had some good results with those versions. I just felt that slots are too tight to throw Probe in, but if you do, it would be whatever slot Thought Scour fits. You are also safe with just 18 land (maybe even 17 if you run 3 and are a bit ballsy) since you don't need mana to cast Probe.

And regarding 4 Dazes, I never found myself wanting 4 Dazes. Opponents already play around Daze vs RUG Delver so you basically already have a Daze with you at all times, and while it has some value in shuffling away with Brainstorm or pitching to Force of Will, I would rather just use that last slot as a utility slot and actually use the card. I don't think it's absolutely wrong to play 4 Dazes, but that's just my experience with the card.

[jin]

From the combo player's perspective, jin is vastly underrating REB against storm combo. Brainstorm is at its filthiest & most degenerate in either Thresh or fast combo like storm, so REB'ing it can be devastating. Hitting early Ponders often will mean that they can't go off with protection (or at all) either by denying mana or pieces. Obviously it's good against Show and Tell as well. Spell Pierce is actually not that hard to play around as I'm sure many of you guys have experienced.


The comparison was REB and Spell Pierce in the SB. If that's what we are still talking about, Spell Pierce still hits the cantrips you are talking about. No one is going to Dark Ritual into paying for Spell Pierce. I'm playing a Stifle version of Tempo Thresh, so I think I'd be choking them on mana. If not, I'm probably losing.

Furthermore, Spell Pierce hits Dark Rituals and Ad Nauseams where REB does not. I'm not underrating REB at all. I just feel that Spell Pierce does the same thing in this deck.

[Dewman]

I played this list in an 18 man, 4 round event last night

4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Delver of Secrets
1 Snapcaster Mage

4 Scalding Tarn
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Wasteland
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island

4 Force of Will
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Stifle
2 Fire//Ice
3 Lightning Bolt
1 Forked Bolt
2 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
2 Ponder
1 Vapor Snag


Sideboard
2 Sulfur Elemental
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Gilded Drake
2 Pyroblast
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Submerge
1 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Flusterstorm

I went 4-0 and beat Jund twice, Esper Stoneblade and Monored Painter.

Card thoughts:

MVP: Nimble Mongoose. I had to spend $4 to buy the 4th one today. It was worth every cent.

Random thoughts about other cards:
Fire//Ice, Lightning Bolt, Forked Bolt. Forked Bolt is ridiculously good in my meta. Fire//Ice is a natural progression because the instant speed is good when you wanna hold up Stifle mana all the time. Lightning Bolt was average. It kills stuff and goes to face for 1 mana. I guess you can't really complain

Vapor Snag. I've seen some people play a Dismember. I went for Vapor Snag. I did have an interesting play where I Vapor Snagged my own Goyf in a counter war. I didn't draw it very often; it feels like a flex slot.

Snapcaster Mage. I do like value, the versatility and certainly the idea of Snapcaster Mage. Unfortunately I never cast it. Once I was trying to set up 3 mana to use it, but they died before I could do that. Ooops.

Sulfur Elemental. These were Pyrostatic Pillars until I scouted and saw 3 Lingering Souls decks.

Sulfuric Vortex. Wow. This card is insanely good for when games go long. Pretty happy to side these in.

[jin]

I played this list in an 18 man, 4 round event last night
...

Congrats. How did you sideboard against each deck? How was the Jund match up particularly? Which was the toughest and how did 2 Ponders serve you? Seems kind of little.

I've never been a fan of snapcaster in this deck. You never have enough lands for a 3 drop. Maybe if you upped the Volcanic Island or Tropical Island count.

[Dewman]

Congrats. How did you sideboard against each deck? How was the Jund match up particularly? Which was the toughest and how did 2 Ponders serve you? Seems kind of little.

I've never been a fan of snapcaster in this deck. You never have enough lands for a 3 drop. Maybe if you upped the Volcanic Island or Tropical Island count.

Thanks. Some more notes about the matches:
Round 1 - Jund with Punishing Grove
Sideboarding: -4 Force of Will, -2 Spell Pierce, +2 Submerge, +2 Surgival Extraction, +2 Sulfuric Vortex

Round 2 - Esper Stoneblade with Geist of Saint Traft
Sideboarding: -4 Stifle, -4 Force of Will, +2 Sulfur Elemental, +2 Sulfuric Vortex, +2 Pyroblast, +1 Ancient Grudge, +1 Grafdigger's Cage. (I sided out the Stifles because I know he'll most likely play around them)

Round 3 - Monored Painter
Sideboarding: -4 Stifle, +1 Sulfuric Vortex, +2 Ancient Grudge, + 1 Surgical Extraction. The various blood moon effects didn't really hinder me too much. Drawing Ancient Grudge also makes it feel like he can never combo you out.

Round 4 - Jund without Punishing Grove
Sideboarding: -4 Force of Will, +2 Sulfuric Vortex, +2 Submerge.

Against the Jund decks, they were pretty mana screwed. One game went long but Sulfuric Vortex cleaned up. In another, I got Choked, but he was low enough and I submerge to finish him off. I guess Jund was only a problem if I kept a weak hand and couldn't punish them, or I let Deathrite Shaman live.

I like Ponder, but it's one area I tend to skimp on if I wanna fit in some spicy stuff. I can definitely see the attration of playing the fullset, but it's not necessarily needed. I've thought about even playing Gitaxian Probe before the 3rd Ponder.

I never liked the Snapcaster version of RUG Delver when ISD came out. I like the idea, the value and the versatility of Snapcaster, but it is a bit hard to cast. I guess I also played it because I wanted more than 12 creatures. I did try to setup 3 mana for Snapcaster in one game vs Monored Painter, but I pitched it to a FoW to kill him when he tried to Pyroblast my Delver

[Sasan]

Speaking of Goyf, we can all agree on the fact that Goyfs are or worst creatures in the deck. They suck versus combo as tapping out versus combo is a big mistake. They suck against decay decks and especially Jund as they can be so easily removed. I want an efficient beater. Has anyone else thought about another creature that can fill the Goyf slot?

[Einherjer]

Speaking of Goyf, we can all agree on the fact that Goyfs are or worst creatures in the deck. They suck versus combo as tapping out versus combo is a big mistake. They suck against decay decks and especially Jund as they can be so easily removed. I want an efficient beater. Has anyone else thought about another creature that can fill the Goyf slot?

Please... stop...

Even though Tarmogoyf might be suboptimal from time to time he is the friggen best creature we got for this slot. There are no alternatives, no shitty trolls, no shitty tigers or anything like this. Deal with it.

Greetings

[catmint]

Disliking goyf for beeing clunky in 1 drop deck is an "ok claim", but he is still by far the best option and there is no maindeck alternative to him. I played tons of games with him as a 3of and did well, but these days threat count is more important and I would recomment him as a 4of. Goyf is especially good versus red decks since his toughness is usually between 4 and 6. That the best red deck also runs decay sucks and is the reason so many people talk about this new player "Jund" in the meta, but Goyf is surely the 2nd best creature against Jund with Delver beeing the worst - Delver is also removed by a single fire and red-blast from the board.

If you are looking for another threat against Jund in the sideboard this has been discussed. Stuff like Sulfuric Vortex, Mire Boa and Plaxmanta have been tried out. Vortex has the potential to make the last 4-8 damage before they stabalize and is only answered by decay. If you are behind in life total you loose anyway so that would not be an argument against vortex, but you can't use the vortex like against UW decks where you kill them with almost even life total since they are able to make a lot of damage themselves, so it is weaker. Shutting down P. Fire is another nice addon in vortex's favour.

Exotic things like Mire-Boa, some trolls or uncastable Obstinate Baloth to hate on liliana are not an option for me since it is way too narrow and not useable against other decks. Especially because this supernarrow threats like the boa are not even immune to their hate. Punishing twice without enough regeneration mana or lili still take care of boa.

Plaxmanta is an old personal favourite of mine since it is good against UW decks and it won me a couple of games. My evaluation might be biased though since I don't like to remember the times where he did nothing. :tongue:

After a lot of testing my group came to the conclusion that there is no "tech" that can turn that machup around. You have to rely on the old Stifle, Waste, Daze - screw them plan, but that does not work out more often than it will work. So then you have to accept that they run more removal than we run threats including recursion, uncounterability and edict while running their own tarmogoyfs to stall + having a good chance to play around Submerge.

Divert has some potential, but again does not change things significantly enough and is an otherwise dead SB slot.

I don't think the matchup is as bad as the Nic Fit matchup, but my guess is with a skilled pilot 65% in their favour.

[jin]

Please... stop...

Even though Tarmogoyf might be suboptimal from time to time he is the friggen best creature we got for this slot. There are no alternatives, no shitty trolls, no shitty tigers or anything like this. Deal with it.

Greetings

I'm with you. No one is replacing Tarmogoyf. Cut Tarmogoyf, lose mirror. Actually, Tarmogoyf is sometimes a 4/5 against combo. You can play him a turn or 2 later. He ends games.

[Arsenal]

I want an efficient beater.

So... Goyf?

[Purgatory]

Historically, I've gone down to 3 Goyfs at times for more burn or counterspells, but right now it feels like 4 is the right amount definitely.

That said, I like to board out a Goyf in some matchups where threat density is less important (against Miracles for example).

[jin]

Historically, I've gone down to 3 Goyfs at times for more burn or counterspells, but right now it feels like 4 is the right amount definitely.

That said, I like to board out a Goyf in some matchups where threat density is less important (against Miracles for example).

Lowering your threat density makes their Swords to Plowshares better. I don't like that plan.

What I mean is, their Swords to Plowshare will hit all of your Delvers now. That seems annoying. I rather they plow some Tarmogoyfs so if they do land a Rest in Peace, I have some Delvers left to close out.

[Barbed Blightning]

That said, I like to board out a Goyf in some matchups where threat density is less important (against Miracles for example).

That seems... erroneous

[Tormod]

Historically, I've gone down to 3 Goyfs at times for more burn or counterspells, but right now it feels like 4 is the right amount definitely.

That said, I like to board out a Goyf in some matchups where threat density is less important (against Miracles for example).

I can see boarding out goyf vs rest in peace
I can see wanting to keep goyf in vs counter balance

[wcm8]

Against some decks, it can make sense to cut a Goyf or two. You need to properly evaluate which cards are going to be the weakest in any given matchup and cut accordingly. Especially if you are playing some number of Sulfur Elemental, you can easily justify cutting a Tarmogoyf or two for a threat that can be played EoT, is uncounterable, and impervious to grave hate.

I also play 19 lands, so sometimes the first card I cut is the 4th Wasteland against decks where it is less useful (e.g. UW Miracles, Elves, High Tide). Hell, against High Tide, I might even cut more.

Outside-the-box thinking is essential for proper sideboarding. There's a lot more to it than something as simple (and generally wrong) as 'cut Daze on the draw, and FoW on the play'.

[poxy14]

Historically, I've gone down to 3 Goyfs at times for more burn or counterspells, but right now it feels like 4 is the right amount definitely.

That said, I like to board out a Goyf in some matchups where threat density is less important (against Miracles for example).

Definitely not against UWMiracles, Where any available beater and some numbers of burn spells (usually 7-8) to the face, is our only win-con.. I've seen numerous players overcommit to landing threats in multiples and paying a heavy price after terminus. You would always want something in your hand even if youve dropped 1 or 2 crits already.. so cutting down beaters (any of our standard 12), i think is not a good decision vs this MU.

[kiwi]

Im agree about to play 4 goyfs, for example against combo is very very important to put pressure at the beginning, if we dont do this, they can sculpt their hand :(,

[Grizzly_Bear]

Definitely not against UWMiracles, Where any available beater and some numbers of burn spells (usually 7-8) to the face, is our only win-con...

Sorry but... this argument just doesn't say anything at all. Please name to me a matchup where "any available beater and some numbers of burn spells" is NOT our only wincon.

[Purgatory]

Sorry but... this argument just doesn't say anything at all. Please name to me a matchup where "any available beater and some numbers of burn spells" is NOT our only wincon.

Indeed. :) I find that against Miracles, where at least I tend to just play my threats one by one and then save burn spells to get in the last 3-6 damage, 11 threats are plenty. Especially against a deck where you always want to have a blue open for Stifle or Spell Pierce/Snare (or a red up for REB/Pyro post-board), the mana cost of Tarmogoyf is heavy. Nimble Mongoose is a much better threat in the match-up anyway, and if they run Helm-RiP main, Delver is more important.

[Blaze22]

I think playing 4 goyfs right now is probably the best option, maybe if you don't like the full set you could try the 3-1 split with a scavenging ooze... but it's still too mana intensive for our deck.

Talking about goyf... what do you think about replacing the forked bolt/chain lightning slot for 1-2 tarfire? isn't that great for our strategy? A shock that gives goyfs a permanent +1+1 is sweet!

[Grizzly_Bear]

I want to step away from discussing list-tweaks of 1-2 out of the 75 cards for a while and discuss an in-game scenario that is becoming increasingly common.

You are playing against a Team America or Jund deck, i.e. you know that they rely heavily on a non-basic, multicolored manabase and also use Deathrite Shaman. Fortunately, you have the best available hand with answers for everything, including volcanic island, wasteland, stifle, lightning bolt, delver. Unfortunately, you are on the draw, and the opponent leads with nonbasic into DRS.

What's the play?

[Blaze22]

I want to step away from discussing list-tweaks of 1-2 out of the 75 cards for a while and discuss an in-game scenario that is becoming increasingly common.

You are playing against a Team America or Jund deck, i.e. you know that they rely heavily on a non-basic, multicolored manabase and also use Deathrite Shaman. Fortunately, you have the best available hand with answers for everything, including volcanic island, wasteland, stifle, lightning bolt, delver. Unfortunately, you are on the draw, and the opponent leads with nonbasic into DRS.

What's the play?

draw, land, go.

that's the play when you have stifle in hand, no matter what.

[wcm8]

I want to step away from discussing list-tweaks of 1-2 out of the 75 cards for a while and discuss an in-game scenario that is becoming increasingly common.

You are playing against a Team America or Jund deck, i.e. you know that they rely heavily on a non-basic, multicolored manabase and also use Deathrite Shaman. Fortunately, you have the best available hand with answers for everything, including volcanic island, wasteland, stifle, lightning bolt, delver. Unfortunately, you are on the draw, and the opponent leads with nonbasic into DRS.

What's the play?

Bolt the Shaman.

Even if you Stifle the fetchland that they might or might not have (they're just as likely to have a Dual or Basic in hand), they're still able to cast a 2-drop thanks to their uncontested shaman. And if they didn't follow up with a fetch, now they have the possibility of dropping a 3-drop or a 2-drop and a 1-drop. Have fun dealing with a turn 2 Liliana. (unless you really want to blow a Stifle on a DRS trigger??)

Shaman needs to die early so that your eventual Mongoose reaches Threshold ASAP. You're not going to win in the long game against one of these decks, so having a shrouded robust threat to clock them while you disrupt their line of play is going to be one of the best options of winning.

This is a great example of why I hate playing Stifle. It presents you with scenarios like this where often you're 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. Some people might look at this as great since it presents plenty of options, but I think it's more a problem of a deck construction that isn't able to maximize each of its turns entirely, and runs too many situational cards that only function in narrow circumstances. (Yeah, if you had won the die roll AND they lead with a fetch, you'd feel justified -- but the actual percentage of times that happens is comparitively low that Stifle does little or nothing in a given match.)

The hand you posited isn't even 'the best available', since you're susceptible to a Wasteland blow-out, don't have a Daze (meaning you might just lose to an early Tarmogoyf), and don't have a Ponder to dig into the correct follow-up sequence.

[wcm8]

draw, land, go.

that's the play when you have stifle in hand, no matter what.

This rigid rhetoric is not only wrong, it's also harmful to the quality of this thread and to anyone looking to pick up the deck hoping to be competitive with it. I think it should be obvious to anyone playing Legacy for more than a couple months that there often isn't just one correct line of play and that many decisions hinge on a multitude of factors the make it wrong to make some sort of all-encompassing 'golden rules'. 'Rules of thumb', sure. But those are different and should be presented as such.

[Grizzly_Bear]

Bolt the Shaman.

...

The hand you posited isn't even 'the best available', since you're susceptible to a Wasteland blow-out, don't have a Daze (meaning you might just lose to an early Tarmogoyf), and don't have a Ponder to dig into the correct follow-up sequence.

You might note that I described a hand 'including' the five mentioned cards. Feel free to throw in a ponder and a daze in the mix.

[Megadeus]

I want to step away from discussing list-tweaks of 1-2 out of the 75 cards for a while and discuss an in-game scenario that is becoming increasingly common.

You are playing against a Team America or Jund deck, i.e. you know that they rely heavily on a non-basic, multicolored manabase and also use Deathrite Shaman. Fortunately, you have the best available hand with answers for everything, including volcanic island, wasteland, stifle, lightning bolt, delver. Unfortunately, you are on the draw, and the opponent leads with nonbasic into DRS.

What's the play?

If this hand has Daze its ridonkulous. Bolt shaman, daze goyf/bob if they even try to play it. Your turn wasteland keep stifle open? (If you didnt daze. )

[Grizzly_Bear]

If this hand has Daze its ridonkulous. Bolt shaman, daze goyf/bob if they even try to play it. Your turn wasteland keep stifle open? (If you didnt daze. )

I agree that the hand is good, which was the whole point. Still, it allows for a lot of options, which is why the scenario is interesting to discuss.

I am not 100% on bolting DRS straight up. I would at least consider just dropping volcanic island and pass. Regardless of whether he plays a fetch or a dual, he will not reach 3 mana. Just observe and act with stifle and daze as appropriate. If he does not act, kill the DRS eot.

[Megadeus]

I agree that the hand is good, which was the whole point. Still, it allows for a lot of options, which is why the scenario is interesting to discuss.

I am not 100% on bolting DRS straight up. I would at least consider just dropping volcanic island and pass. Regardless of whether he plays a fetch or a dual, he will not reach 3 mana. Just observe and act with stifle and daze as appropriate. If he does not act, kill the DRS eot.

Not sure. I dont like stuffing the DRS trigger. (Remember if his opening is fetch then DRS he can still activate DRS for 3mana if his Second land is a dual.) This just seems like a situation where the details really matter. Did he open with a fetch? Did I draw a daze? Does he play around daze?

[Blaze22]

This rigid rhetoric is not only wrong, it's also harmful to the quality of this thread and to anyone looking to pick up the deck hoping to be competitive with it. I think it should be obvious to anyone playing Legacy for more than a couple months that there often isn't just one correct line of play and that many decisions hinge on a multitude of factors the make it wrong to make some sort of all-encompassing 'golden rules'. 'Rules of thumb', sure. But those are different and should be presented as such.

At least my post is helping new players approaching the deck, you're not giving any advice to a novice player reading this. I know very well the rug tempo strategy, and I also know as you stated that there is no correct play 100% of times. But in that particular case leaving yourself mana open for stifle will be the correct play 95% of times. you want to use your stifle on your oppoent's fetchland more than anything else on the first turns, you can't afford to watch your opponent fetch undisturbed with stifle sitting in your hand. if he doesn't play a fetchland you just bolt the shaman eot.

one last note:



...And if they didn't follow up with a fetch, now they have the possibility of dropping a 3-drop or a 2-drop and a 1-drop. Have fun dealing with a turn 2 Liliana. (unless you really want to blow a Stifle on a DRS trigger??)


this makes no sense at all. If he casts shaman off of a nonbasic and we start with volcanic (and this is exactly our scenario), he will NOT be able to do that. please stop confusing other players.

[jin]

draw, land, go.

that's the play when you have stifle in hand, no matter what.

Totally agreed. One turn of Deathrite Shaman this early won't win them the game. Everyone who responded seemed to ignore the fact that BUG or Jund also play Wastelands. Your play is best because it also protects against incoming Wastelands that could target your Volcanic Island. I wouldn't Bolt the Deathrite Shaman until turn 2 either, so I don't get blown out of the water by Wasteland. Getting hit by Wasteland there effectively shuts you off of your Daze-awesome hand.


This rigid rhetoric is not only wrong, it's also harmful to the quality of this thread [...]

I think the only comments harmful to the thread are your comments that prioritize attacking the speaker rather than addressing his comment. Just stop.

[catmint]

The described hand:
volcanic island, wasteland, stifle, lightning bolt, delver

First of all we are missing 3 unknown cards in our turn, which brings up a lot of variables of course, but for the sake of understanding what is the "problem against jund on the draw" I like this task.

Even if we have another colored source to not have the consideration of losing against a wasteland, the question is: what do we achieve by bolting the shaman? The opponent gets to 2 mana next turn anyway, but might also resolve a fetchland.

So what do we lose by not bolting the shaman: Nothing, the opponent gets to 2 mana, but we have the option of stifleing a fetchland/wasteland. If he plays a non-fetchland the shaman is not active and we likely bolt it end of turn. If not because we pierce/snare, we bolt the shaman next turn leaving stifle open from another island. Waste has to wait.

The situation would be worse if the opponent would have led with fetchland into deathrite, since then we are talking about the opponent possibly having access to 3 mana in case he follows-up with a non-fetchland. In that case it might be even ok to force the shaman leaving stifle open the next turn and then wasting our turn 2, hoping to win with the screw. Or just bolting the shaman forcing the 2 drop and then wasting with Stifle open. Any scenario where the shaman lives gives them possibly access to 3 mana turn 2 which can decide the game right there (Thoughtseize into Hymn/confidant being one of the worst). If we have spell pierce I think it is correct to let the shaman resolve and say volcanic go hoping to pierce a hymn/liliana and then follow-up with bolting the shaman in our turn and leaving another island open for stifle (and in the best case an alternative spell like another bolt/pierce/snare/brainstorm if it is correct to play it EOT). I would wait with the wasteland 1 turn in this case.

The key to understand here is to break the tempo loss of being on the draw against a deck with acceleration and a good curve that wrecks us. Similar to Maverick the odds are bad to beat that. The cards and angle of attacks are totally different but the concept is the same.

On more thing: I don’t like the attitude of not playing Stifle because the decisions are more difficult. If Stifle makes you play bad you should play another deck. Go through the outlined scenarios with Stifle being something else like Thoughtscour/Snare and see how they play out.

[wcm8]

At least my post is helping new players approaching the deck, you're not giving any advice to a novice player reading this. I know very well the rug tempo strategy, and I also know as you stated that there is no correct play 100% of times. But in that particular case leaving yourself mana open for stifle will be the correct play 95% of times. you want to use your stifle on your oppoent's fetchland more than anything else on the first turns, you can't afford to watch your opponent fetch undisturbed with stifle sitting in your hand. if he doesn't play a fetchland you just bolt the shaman eot.

I can think of numerous examples where the logic of going 'Draw Go' just because you have a Stifle in your starting hand is wrong. Let me just give you three such examples: 1) against Goblins where your removal spell in hand is sorcery-speed and they dropped a Lackey turn 1; against almost any combo deck where your alternative turn 1 option is to deploy a Delver and thus establish a clock; against UW Miracles where you have a Daze and can also drop a turn 1 Nimble Mongoose.

The theme here is often that Stifle gets progressively worse and worse on the Draw in comparison to being on the play, and that against many decks you need to prioritize establishing a Clock before you worry about Stifle. I would argue that your quoted 95% is far lower than reality. To list every single example of where the rule of thumb of going 'Draw Go' with Stifle in hand would be too exhaustive to attempt listing out in this thread. But I hope it's apparent why this is the case.


I think the only comments harmful to the thread are your comments that prioritize attacking the speaker rather than addressing his comment. Just stop.

The response I made to this individual was attacking the idea of having an all-encompassing statement like 'do [this], no matter what'. Not sure why there's any confusion here or feelings getting hurt.


On more thing: I don’t like the attitude of not playing Stifle because the decisions are more difficult. If Stifle makes you play bad you should play another deck. Go through the outlined scenarios with Stifle being something else like Thoughtscour/Snare and see how they play out.

The decisions aren't necessarily more difficult, the problem is that Stifle forces you to pritoritize maximizing its value to the detriment of other lines of play. How powerful Stifle is is going to largely hinge upon unknown data: Are you going to win the die roll? Is your opponent's deck even one which is actually susceptible to it? Does he have a few opening plays that will get wrecked by it, or is going to deploy a bunch of basics and make holding up Stifle look stupid? Does this player know how to 'play around' Stifle and minimize its impact?

It doesn't necessarily make the player play poorly, it just leads to cases where playing it "correctly" force you into awkward scenarios. Sometimes you simply don't know what the correct line of play is due to unknown information. And as with almost every scenario, it depends a lot on the rest of the hand and the board state.

Conversely, Thought Scour and Spell Snare hold their respective value for much longer into the game, whereas Stifle can quickly become irrelevant.

If you're expecting a bunch of mirrors all day, then yes, by all means play 4 Stifle. But if your expected metagame has a healty amount of variety, I think you'll often find yourself often wishing you didn't.

[Yonthan]

Fortunately, you have the best available hand with answers for everything, including volcanic island, wasteland, stifle, lightning bolt, delver. Unfortunately, you are on the draw


i really enjoy reading the discussion above, and I understand the dilemma we face because of the first turn DRS in this scenario. That makes me wonder: should we actually keep this hand on the draw? I know we are missing two cards, but I would personally ship this hand away because
1) it doesn't have library manipulation
2) it doesn't have counterspell to stop the early threat (yes, we have stifle, but we are on the draw, we can't utilize the the "stifle-the-fetch" trick to stop the turn two threat...)

[Megadeus]

I enjoy this exercise as well. I think to properly figure out the best line of play though we need all of the info. For example:

What are our other 1-3 cards (depending on how many times you mulligan and such)?
Did our opponent fetch into shaman?
What land did he fetch (maybe he got a scrubland showing zombies)?
Also to who asked if we even keep this hand, assuming you know you are on the draw, but you dont know what deck your opponent is on do you keep the hand?

Maybe someone should do a Sample hand article similar to Bryant Cooks articles he does for TES?

[wcm8]

Using Decked (an app for iPhone I highly recommend), I generated some 7-card handers to consider. I didn't bother posting any of the ones with no blue sources, as those would obviously be mulligans. This was using the Saito list, and I think it'd also be good to perform this exercise again later with a list that incorporates 4 Stifles.

Keep or mulligan, and if kept what is the turn 1 play if you're A) on the play or B) on the draw against an unknown opponent who played a non-descript blue fetchland and passed. And a 3rd question C): is the play you'd choose to perform the only correct choice? why or why not?

1. mongoose, daze, FoW, ponder, tarmogoyf, tarmogoyf, volcanic island
2. delver, lightning bolt, daze, mongoose, misty rainforest, ponder, ponder
3. daze, volcanic island, bolt, spell snare, daze, wasteland, misty rainforest
4. FoW, scalding tarn, nimble mongoose, misty rainforest, delver, spell pierce, chain lightning
5. brainstorm, brainstorm, wasteland, volcanic island, chain lightning, spell pierce, misty rainforest
6. brainstorm, lightning bolt, tropical island, lightning bolt, misty rainforest, lightning bolt, spell snare
7. wasteland, ponder, volcanic island, wasteland, chain lightning, spell pierce, misty rainforest

[Blaze22]

I can think of numerous examples where the logic of going 'Draw Go' just because you have a Stifle in your starting hand is wrong. Let me just give you three such examples: 1) against Goblins where your removal spell in hand is sorcery-speed and they dropped a Lackey turn 1; against almost any combo deck where your alternative turn 1 option is to deploy a Delver and thus establish a clock; against UW Miracles where you have a Daze and can also drop a turn 1 Nimble Mongoose.
The theme here is often that Stifle gets progressively worse and worse on the Draw in comparison to being on the play, and that against many decks you need to prioritize establishing a Clock before you worry about Stifle. I would argue that your quoted 95% is far lower than reality. To list every single example of where the rule of thumb of going 'Draw Go' with Stifle in hand would be too exhaustive to attempt listing out in this thread. But I hope it's apparent why this is the case.


...Dude... Did you even read my post?


But in that particular case leaving yourself mana open for stifle will be the correct play 95% of times.



Back to the main discussion, the fact is that stifle loses value pretty fast so you want to "get rid" of it as soon as possible. stifle is an incredibly strong card in the first 1-3 turns and you want to get the max out of it to gain an advantage. An early stifle can have HUGE consequences through the course of the entire game. The best you can do to test this is playing some games against rug tempo, as I did. You will realize so badly how much that card does hurt your plans. even if you're able to connect some land drops after that, you will still be one mana behind vs a deck that plays dazes, wastelands and some number of pierces. You can't afford to waste the first opportunity to stifle opponent's fetchland as screwing the opponent is our main strategy to the victory.

[catmint]

The decisions aren't necessarily more difficult, the problem is that Stifle forces you to pritoritize maximizing its value to the detriment of other lines of play. How powerful Stifle is is going to largely hinge upon unknown data: Are you going to win the die roll? Is your opponent's deck even one which is actually susceptible to it? Does he have a few opening plays that will get wrecked by it, or is going to deploy a bunch of basics and make holding up Stifle look stupid? Does this player know how to 'play around' Stifle and minimize its impact?

It doesn't necessarily make the player play poorly, it just leads to cases where playing it "correctly" force you into awkward scenarios. Sometimes you simply don't know what the correct line of play is due to unknown information. And as with almost every scenario, it depends a lot on the rest of the hand and the board state.

True - you have to balance with what the rest of the deck is, the likelyness of what the opponent can do to play around it - how much it hurts you,... Sometimes it is correct to just save your stifle for later or shuffle it away since your opponent is able to play around it well enough to hurt your tempo. The decisions are influenced by the MU, the opponent skill level, your other cards in hands and many factors - some of them as you said unknown. PLaying with what is "likely" to happen is a very important skill in magic and especially with cards like stifle and cabal therapy. Yes, it forces some awkward spots - they are awkward but does not mean there is no correct play.



Conversely, Thought Scour and Spell Snare hold their respective value for much longer into the game, whereas Stifle can quickly become irrelevant.

If you're expecting a bunch of mirrors all day, then yes, by all means play 4 Stifle. But if your expected metagame has a healty amount of variety, I think you'll often find yourself often wishing you didn't.

Just not true. If you think your stifle is shit after Turn 3 maybe thats why you keep it open too often and screw up your game.
Most common game winning late stifles:
Stifle fetch #4+ to make daze a live card
Stifle fetch #n to screw up brainscentral recall and make your opponent draw again his shit.
Stifle Terminus or Entreat
Stifle Storm Trigger
Stifle Batterskull enter the battlefield effect.
Stifle Engineered Explosivs
Stifle liliana -2
Stifle cascade
Stifle the creation of Jitte counters
Stifle Snapcaster Mage come into play
Stifle Stoneforge come into play
Stifle Anihilator 6


If I read again that stifle loses it's value whereas thought-scour has always value my head will explode. Please wcm8, you don't want me dead right? :tongue:

[Megadeus]

Stifle is so fun! It does so many unexoected things! Dont forget snap caster triggers!
Oops you said it! Still a great card all the time!

[Dewman]

Using Decked (an app for iPhone I highly recommend), I generated some 7-card handers to consider. I didn't bother posting any of the ones with no blue sources, as those would obviously be mulligans. This was using the Saito list, and I think it'd also be good to perform this exercise again later with a list that incorporates 4 Stifles.

Keep or mulligan, and if kept what is the turn 1 play if you're A) on the play or B) on the draw against an unknown opponent who played a non-descript blue fetchland and passed. And a 3rd question C): is the play you'd choose to perform the only correct choice? why or why not?

1. mongoose, daze, FoW, ponder, tarmogoyf, tarmogoyf, volcanic island
2. delver, lightning bolt, daze, mongoose, misty rainforest, ponder, ponder
3. daze, volcanic island, bolt, spell snare, daze, wasteland, misty rainforest
4. FoW, scalding tarn, nimble mongoose, misty rainforest, delver, spell pierce, chain lightning
5. brainstorm, brainstorm, wasteland, volcanic island, chain lightning, spell pierce, misty rainforest
6. brainstorm, lightning bolt, tropical island, lightning bolt, misty rainforest, lightning bolt, spell snare
7. wasteland, ponder, volcanic island, wasteland, chain lightning, spell pierce, misty rainforest

1. Mull.
2. Always keep.
A&B T1 Delver, T2 Ponder
3. Borderline. I would be close to keeping this because I'm greedy.
4. Always keep.
A&B T1 Fetch Trop and cast Delver.
5. Keep
A&B T1 Volcanic, eot Brainstorm and dig.
6. Slightly sketchy keep.
A&B T1 Trop. Eot Brainstorm or T2 Brainstorm is fine (depending what opponent does).
7. Sketchy keep.
A. T1 Ponder
B. T1 Volc and pass. Or Chain lightning their DRS

[Goddik]

Using Decked (an app for iPhone I highly recommend), I generated some 7-card handers to consider. I didn't bother posting any of the ones with no blue sources, as those would obviously be mulligans. This was using the Saito list, and I think it'd also be good to perform this exercise again later with a list that incorporates 4 Stifles.

Keep or mulligan, and if kept what is the turn 1 play if you're A) on the play or B) on the draw against an unknown opponent who played a non-descript blue fetchland and passed. And a 3rd question C): is the play you'd choose to perform the only correct choice? why or why not?

1. mongoose, daze, FoW, ponder, tarmogoyf, tarmogoyf, volcanic island
Keep in the dark, keep against most decks (would mull against decks with creatures and wastelands that are not gobilns) Keep both play and draw. Probably lead with ponder
2. delver, lightning bolt, daze, mongoose, misty rainforest, ponder, ponder
Keep all day every day against everything. Lead with delver into ponder against most things
3. daze, volcanic island, bolt, spell snare, daze, wasteland, misty rainforest
Not happy but keep...
4. FoW, scalding tarn, nimble mongoose, misty rainforest, delver, spell pierce, chain lightning
Keep all day every day all decks. Play delver then say go.
5. brainstorm, brainstorm, wasteland, volcanic island, chain lightning, spell pierce, misty rainforest
Keep, not happy.
6. brainstorm, lightning bolt, tropical island, lightning bolt, misty rainforest, lightning bolt, spell snare
Keep. not happy
7. wasteland, ponder, volcanic island, wasteland, chain lightning, spell pierce, misty rainforest
Keep

Basically i keep everything with a ponder or 2 lands and a brainstorm. The deck is very good at filtering draws so you can usually dig for stuff you need. I am not too happy about hands without threats against combo, and i will mull hands without threaths or cantrips, or hands that are exceptionally clunky.

[Goddik]

On stifle. Playing stifle is very dependant on board states and matchups.

General rules of thumb:

1. Don't stifle your own play to hold up stifle. Deploying threaths is often more important
2. Don't hold up stifle if you are missing land drops. Drop those ponders to get to the right play-state

The moment where stifle is good is not turn 1. It is the turn where you waste them with a threath on board and pass holding up stifle to their few lands (depending on matchup)

[Dewman]

On stifle. Playing stifle is very dependant on board states and matchups.

General rules of thumb:

1. Don't stifle your own play to hold up stifle. Deploying threaths is often more important
2. Don't hold up stifle if you are missing land drops. Drop those ponders to get to the right play-state

The moment where stifle is good is not turn 1. It is the turn where you waste them with a threath on board and pass holding up stifle to their few lands (depending on matchup)

I actually like to side out Stifle if I know my opponent is going to play around it

[Sigar]

I actually like to side out Stifle if I know my opponent is going to play around it

With this logic, there's no reason to play Stifle in the MD, because people are always going to play around it as soon as they see anything that resembles Canadian Thresh (Tropical Island, Volcanic Island, Delver, etc.).

[catmint]

On stifle. Playing stifle is very dependant on board states and matchups.

General rules of thumb:

1. Don't stifle your own play to hold up stifle. Deploying threaths is often more important
2. Don't hold up stifle if you are missing land drops. Drop those ponders to get to the right play-state

The moment where stifle is good is not turn 1. It is the turn where you waste them with a threath on board and pass holding up stifle to their few lands (depending on matchup)

Words of wisdom. Couldn't have said it better.
In addition to that my post from above: which basically says: don't be afraid to keep a stifle in hand while the opponent fetches early. Stifle keeps it's value.

Glad to have this high quality posts. Hope this ends the "Stifle gives you awkward situations & looses it's value" discussion.

[Milen]

With this logic, there's no reason to play Stifle in the MD, because people are always going to play around it as soon as they see anything that resembles Canadian Thresh (Tropical Island, Volcanic Island, Delver, etc.).

I actually like this one better :P. But lets not get into that fight again. Lets just agree that people preffer different approaches to the same problem :)