Tales of the Lackey and Mongoose

[Citrus-God]

I was listening to L. Wells (a great song by Franz Ferdinand btw), I came across this gem on SCG. I also have credit those two and their playskills, as I have decided to play Threshold much more differently as of now, as well as a much more different view of Goblins, as 4 Tinkerer became one of the best metagame options. The way Bardo and Machinus played out the game was enough to tell you the intracies of this match-up, and how the match-up should be played.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13386.html

I love this article, and I encourage those who play Goblins and Threshold religously to check this article out. It can mean a lot.

[Nightmare]

Pretty good, and about what I had expected, results-wise.

[Bongo]

Very good article, great work!


In my own experience, UGW Threshold has to have a really good draw and flawless play to win against Goblins.
Overall, the matchup is not good for Thresh, and the 3 Tivadar's Crusade and 4 Hydroblast prove this. Without TC, sideboarded games are very lopsided.

I also have found Chalice of the Void to be an awesome sideboard card, certainly more powerful than Crypt in this match. It's an absolute must-counter and can end games right there.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I really question the legitimacy of results with these lists. I would've thought that when testing for broad metagame purposes, the obvious decision would be to use as generic a pair of lists as possible, but this has not been done. 4 basic lands in Threshold? Four maindeck Meddling Mages? 8 Fetchlands in mono-red Goblins? 4 maindeck Tinkerers?


These lists seem to tilt the matchup heavily for Goblins. Mage is little besides awful in this matchup, whereas Tinkerer is broadly weak in the metagame but crucial in this particular matchup. Already running 8 Fetchlands, he didn't even run a pair of Taigas to give access to Tin-Street Hooligan, who's infinitely better against Equipment and a threat in matchups where Tinkerer is naught but a Squire, but is slightly worse against Pithing Needles. The use of extra basics is deceptive here, as it seems to make Wasteland worse. With a curve topping out at 2, however, the threat to worry about should be color screw, not trading land for land, and the extra basics also make Port more effective.

I'm not even going to touch on the cantrip-base of that Threshold list. Also, and I'm not trying to be a dick to Bardo about this, but whatever his flawed political views, we know that Machinus is a very, very good player, whereas Bardo is, well, the scourge of ten man tournaments. Bardo's skill level is really, as far as I'm concerned, an unknown, as I don't think he's ever shown up to a large Legacy tournament (not his fault, as they're several hundreds of miles away, but still).

[Bardo]

Also, and I'm not trying to be a dick to Bardo about this, but whatever his flawed political views, we know that Machinus is a very, very good player, whereas Bardo is, well, the scourge of ten man tournaments.

'No offense taken. But note that I'm not "hundreds" of miles away from large Legacy events, I literally live thousands of miles away from any. Living in Portland, Oregon is sweet as hell, but organized Legacy is pretty dodgy here.

As for the lists, Machinus' list won the last SCG DFD, a result which is good enough for me. The Threshold list shouldn't be terribly controversial; two similar examples can be seen here (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=17908) and here (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=18645).

[Machinus]

Honestly Jack, if I hadn't seen you at a Legacy tournament I would ask if you had ever played the format. Fetchlands and Tinkerer are insane, and they win games (and tournaments). You're complaining about a list that has had success and whose strength is acknowledged by many good players in this format. I'd really like to find some legitimate point to discuss with you, but your post is at best the confused rambling of a non-player, and at worst a spiteful attempt to degrade my success.

My deck is well-built, and so is Dan's. We specifically chose the best lists to write this article about. I would run this exact 75-card list at the next Legacy event; if I were to play threshold I might have some minor changes, but I know Dan has a lot of confidence in his list, and he's played the deck a little more than I have. The cantrips and basics are definitely optimal, and a very important part of the deck.

Basically, you don't have the credibility necessary to criticize our lists.

Regarding playskill - I've played Dan online quite a bit, and he's definitely a strong opponent there. He hasn't had a chance to demonstrate his abilities in a large tournament setting (whereas I have), so this is a valid objection if anyone cares to raise it. However, Dan has done an incredible amount of work on this deck (and the archetype), and even though at small tournaments, has played regularly against some talented players. If any discrepancy that remains, I included it in my analysis by saying that the results are slightly high in Goblins favor.

[kirdape3]

The results mostly conform to our testing except ours were more heavily weighted in Goblins' favor game 1 (I think I broke Tom for a 7-3 score alternating play in the first game). Goblins just keeps coming with a stronger early and late game. Where Threshold has the advantage is in the midgame - you've just amped up your creatures to 3/3 untargetables and 4/4s for G and G1 respectively, whereas Goblins is still bound by it's mana and/or trying to ramp a Vial to end it. If Threshold waits too long, Goblins will simply leverage it's superior cards (Serum Visions, meet Goblin Ringleader. Even Mystic Enforcer doesn't particularly like fighting a Siege-Gang Commander and a bunch of lands) into a game win.

Even with fully competent players on both sides, game 1 was a bloodbath and the sideboard cards just try to either blunt the early Lackey rush or stretch the midgame advantage to take advantage of a slower offense. Meanwhile, Goblins gets anything from the best combat trick available to them (Tormod's Crypt) to cards that defend themselves against Threshold's countermeasures (Red Elemental Blast) to the backbreaking threat of Chalice of the Void set at 1.

I personally only think that Chris' list has two few lands in it (we're running 24 and loving every second of it - if you're flooded you'll just draw a Fact or Fiction, Demonic Tutor, 5 power for 5 mana, or a Medallion/Fires of Yavimaya on legs and get out of it) and I don't particularly think that Needle is awesome in Dan's list. Otherwise, these are pretty solid examples of what these archetypes look like.

[Bardo]

I don't particularly think that Needle is awesome in Dan's list.

Dear god, if I wasn't running the Needles, I would have been destroyed. AEther Vial is such a jack-hammer to the nuts. But I really don't want this thread to turn into a discussion of the lists we used. I'd rather take that to the appropriate thread in the LMF.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Honestly Jack, if I hadn't seen you at a Legacy tournament I would ask if you had ever played the format. Fetchlands and Tinkerer are insane, and they win games (and tournaments). You're complaining about a list that has had success and whose strength is acknowledged by many good players in this format. I'd really like to find some legitimate point to discuss with you, but your post is at best the confused rambling of a non-player, and at worst a spiteful attempt to degrade my success.

My deck is well-built, and so is Dan's. We specifically chose the best lists to write this article about. I would run this exact 75-card list at the next Legacy event; if I were to play threshold I might have some minor changes, but I know Dan has a lot of confidence in his list, and he's played the deck a little more than I have. The cantrips and basics are definitely optimal, and a very important part of the deck.

Basically, you don't have the credibility necessary to criticize our lists.

And yet you do know better than this, so your post is in fact little more than a flame-bait, and your claim that you'd like to find a legitimate discussion point seems quite hollow as there existed several that you could have picked up on, instead of simply deciding to call me a n00b in more words.

You've played a different build of Goblins are every Duel for Duals to my knowledge, so saying that criticism of this decklist amounts to a personal attack is ridiculous on multiple levels.

The actual strength of the decklists is, however, not the issue. The point I am raising is that these are not the standard decklists. Four-of maindeck Tinkerer is not normal. Portent, conversely, is now pretty much par-the-course for Threshold. Mental Note vs. Predict is up for debate, but maindeck Meddling Mages are distinctly on the decline. Whether or not you think you've "improved" the deck is irrelevant, unless your purpose is to trump your own builds, as the purported aim of your article was to explore the matchup for the general metagame. Doing this with builds that have substantial deviations from the normal builds, which change the matchup significantly, is not therefore the logical thing to do.

Also, no, fetchlands in monocolor decks do not, have not, and will not ever "win games". This is factually 100% effing wrong, unless you mean they can randomly win games for your opponent if they happen to play Stifle or Ankh. At best they involve trading a small amount of life for a very small amount of deck thinning (or effective deck thickening if you've already resolved a Ringleader).

[Volt]

Um, sorry to interrupt. Just wanted to say that I enjoyed the article. Looking forward to part 2.

[Bardo]

Whether or not you think you've "improved" the deck is irrelevant, unless your purpose is to trump your own builds, as the purported aim of your article was to explore the matchup for the general metagame.

As major contributors to our respective archetypes, our goal was to use the best lists available--in our estimation--for this exercise. If there are deviations, I wouldn't declare them "substantial."

There is, in fact, no universally accepted "fully optimized" version of these decks. There are just pundits and developers (like ourselves) who feel their version of these decks is "more fully optimized" than other versions.


Just wanted to say that I enjoyed the article. Looking forward to part 2.

Thanks. I hope it runs soon. This article has been in the SCG inbox for a long time, along with the next installment of my Legacy Metagame series.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

As major contributors to our respective archetypes, our goal was to use the best lists available--in our estimation--for this exercise. If there are deviations, I wouldn't declare them "substantial."

There is, in fact, no universally accepted "fully optimized" version of these decks. There are just pundits and developers (like ourselves) who feel their version of these decks is "more fully optimized" than other versions.


Then you should stick to the variants that cause the least disruption within the matchup. Obviously a build that runs 4 Tinkerer is going to play the matchup very differently than those without so many answers to Needle (the vast majority). Even the Mages, which are much less of a deviation, are still not common in the Main anymore, and substantially hurts Goblins performance. What's worse is that in this instance the two problems compound each other, as Mage relies heavily upon Needle to be effective in the Goblins vs. Thresh matchup, as without Needle on Gempalm and Vial, a Mage on Warchief or Siege-Gang is rarely going to be relevant. When facing down such an unusual number of answers to Needle, Mage is pretty much relegated to being a Grizzly Bear that can't block Piledrivers.

[Cait_Sith]

I have analized the article and this really helps me solidify my decision to play Solidarity/Spring Tide.

[Jankwolf]

To TheInfamousBearAssasin:
I am on your side and whole heartedly agree with your view points. Those decklists arent the standards but look more like tweaked lab experiments.
And i was under the impression that most goblin decks ran with a splash to deal with said artifacts...or in the off chance an enchantment.

At Machinus and Bardo:
Question...


The only thing md Meddling does is stop a second pending threat that is going to come onto the table, while the first one may have gotten through.
What is the point of having it Maindecked?
As for playing 4 Tinkerer...WTF? Its a cool idea but with goblins clock and the ability to fetch them out via matron wouldnt two have sufficed in this case?

[Eldariel]

I'll just go ahead and suggest that you play at least 20 games pre-board, since those numbers appear to be very rough on the edges, especially since you yourselves admitted that you were getting a hang of it only after a few games.

[Nightmare]

The flames and personal attacks end now, or warnings and infractions begin to be distributed. Thread Watched.

[calosso]

As for the lists, Machinus' list won the last SCG DFD, a result which is good enough for me. The Threshold list shouldn't be terribly controversial; two similar examples can be seen here (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=17908) and here (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=18645).

For you information, Machinus did not beat me in the DFD.I conceded to him so I could go home.

I am certain I would have won this match-up since my build was suited to beat the mirror.

[Bardo]

The only thing md Meddling does is stop a second pending threat that is going to come onto the table, while the first one may have gotten through.

Wow, I had no idea maindeck Meddling Mage is such a big deal here. This is odd, to say the least. Does anyone remember a deck called "NQG?" That is, Mages, but no Dryads.

Chronologically, a list of T8 Threshold/Gro deck with or without Magi in the maindeck:

1st Place: BA2: 4 Mage
7th Place: GP Philly: 4 Mage
8th Place: GP Philly: 3 Mage
1st Place: GP Lille: 4 Mage
2nd Place: GP Lille: 2 Mage
5th Place: GP Barcelona: 3 Mage
1/2nd Place: Kadilak's DLD 1: 0 Mage (Alix Hatfield)
1st Place: SCG DFD 3: 3 Mage
4th Place: Kadilak's DLD 2: 4 Mage
7th Place: Kadilkak's DLD 2: 0 Mage (Jesse Hatfield)
8th Place: GenCon 2006: 4 Mage
2nd Place: Mana Leak Open: 4 Mage
2nd Place: SCG DFD 3: 0 Mage (Jesse Hatfield)
3rd Place: SCG DFD 3: 3 Mage

Threshold 8s with maindeck Mage: 11/14 (79%)
Threshold 8s without maindeck Mage: 3/14 (21%)

And without exception the Threshold decks that didn't run maindeck Mage were played by two people, Jesse (2 Top8s) and Alix Hatfield (1 Top8). Now, the point of this isn't to debate the merits of Meddling Mage in the maindeck or not. But it should be clear that this isn't some rogue and experimental deviation, when 79% of the Threshold decks that ever made Top 8 ran Meddling Mage in the maindeck.


maindeck Meddling Mages are distinctly on the decline.

Where exactly is this coming from?


For you information, Machinus did not beat me in the DFD.I conceded to him so I could go home.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.


When facing down such an unusual number of answers to Needle, Mage is pretty much relegated to being a Grizzly Bear that can't block Piledrivers.

The point of our exercise was to take the versions of these decks that we would take to a tournament and see how the match would play out if we were paired together. We found that when Goblins went first, it almost always won (80%) and when Threshold went first, it usually won (60%).

[Nightmare]

As much as Virginia seems to think they define the metagame, it simply isn't true. I spent three pages defending maindeck Meddling Mage, largely from Urbahn and MadZur. While they certainly are the most adamant about how bad it is, their sentiments haven't resounded to a decline in MD Mage anywhere but in their own metagame. Calling a non-mage list the "Generic List" when it's so obviously not seems incorrect. I'd go so far to say that there isn't even a generic list available, considering how hotly the cantrip selection discussion continues to be. Nor should there be, because while certain cantrips serve different - albeit similar - purposes, it's perfectly reasonable that they could be as metagame dependant as any other card in the deck. In an aggro-dominated metagame, Mental Note will probably be the superior choice over Predict/Portent. Perhaps the same wouldn't be true in a control meta, where the potential card advantage is more important than speed.

[Watcher487]

Personally I just have a more ranged question:

Why would you expect a Goblin on U/G/W Thresh match-up? I know you both stated that these 2 decks are the Decks to Beat right now.

I personally haven't played against U/G/W Thresh when playing Goblins, shoot I haven't played against U/G/W Thresh since Big Arse 2.

I would picture more of a resource to beating both decks, with what is useful in thier repective match-ups and what to do in a heavy Aggro or Aggro-Control field, especially with your own respective decks.

I feel that taking the format to one match-up is insane especially with the amount of different decks from many different metagames out there. It makes Legacy feel more like Type 2 which is just dumb in the end.

But overall, I did like the article. It's not really an article for Legacy players as a whole but more for People preparing for GP Columbus.

[nitewolf9]

I liked the article, but had the most issues with the goblins list. And I agree that you guys should play more than 10 matches before drawing any sort of conclusion.

Oh, and to all threshold players...please continue to play maindeck meddling mages. Don't listen to the naysayers. <hypnotic chant>mage is good....mage is good....</hypnotic chant>

[URABAHN]

As much as Virginia seems to think they define the metagame, it simply isn't true. I spent three pages defending maindeck Meddling Mage, largely from URABAHN and MadZur.

NoVA players don't assume the Legacy Universe revolves around them. We play in the Mid-Atlantic Region, we don't play in the Tri-State area, we don't play in SoCal, and we don't play in the Ohio Valley, so of course NoVA players are going to look at the metagame from our viewpoint.

[Jankwolf]

Ok. What exactly does main deck meddling mage do??
Mr.Nightmare, I simply do not understand the point of the mage in game one.
If you could explain it to someone who is not from virginia(that would be me)
That would be great...
THx much

[Nightmare]

Ok. What exactly does main deck meddling mage do??
Mr.Nightmare, I simply do not understand the point of the mage in game one.
If you could explain it to someone who is not from virginia(that would be me)
That would be great...
THx muchRead the UG/w Thresh thread in the LMF, starting from about page 4.

[AnwarA101]

And without exception the Threshold decks that didn't run maindeck Mage were played by two people, Jesse (2 Top8s) and Alix Hatfield (1 Top8). Now, the point of this isn't to debate the merits of Meddling Mage in the maindeck or not. But it should be clear that this isn't some rogue and experimental deviation, when 79% of the Threshold decks that ever made Top 8 ran Meddling Mage in the maindeck.


Well this doesn't take into account people who were not in the Top8. Its hard to know whether Mage is played more or less in all the UGW Threshold decks. Do you have those numbers? For some of these tournaments only the Top8 decks are available and so that would probably not be feasible.

[Nightmare]

Well this doesn't take into account people who were not in the Top8.Why would that be relevant to the discussion? I'm sure there are some UGw Gro decks not in the T8 running Naturalize and Breeding Pool. That doesn't mean they're worth looking into the statistics for. Generally you want to look at the stats of the decks that do well, not the ones that do poorly (card selection is an ever present factor in the X-2+ bracket). Even if you want to cut deeper, where do you draw the line? t16? t32? The whole event? How would those results be any more relevant than a random 8 man tournament in Bummfuck Kentucky?

[Bardo]

Well this doesn't take into account people who were not in the Top8. Its hard to know whether Mage is played more or less in all the UGW Threshold decks. Do you have those numbers? For some of these tournaments only the Top8 decks are available and so that would probably not be feasible.

Wow, deja vu. Haven't we done this before (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=94448&postcount=176)?

This is from only one tournament (one of the SCG DFDs), but that's what I was able to tell from one tournament:

Placement of decking running maindeck Magi:
1
10
49
55
62
(avg 35.40th place)

Placement of decks not running maindeck Magi:
26 (3 in the board)
64
71
(53.66th place)

If there's enough serious interest in this, I could do some more research and make an article out of it, since data from one tournament is interesting, but not terribly meaningful.


I liked the article, but had the most issues with the goblins list. And I agree that you guys should play more than 10 matches before drawing any sort of conclusion.

20 games is a reasonable sample size. 100 games would be better, obviously, but we do have lives, you know?


Why would you expect a Goblin on U/G/W Thresh match-up? I know you both stated that these 2 decks are the Decks to Beat right now.

Do you really want a serious answer this this question? Would you rather we spent several hours documenting the Secret Force vs. MUC match-up?

[Machinus]

I am certain I would have won this match-up since my build was suited to beat the mirror.


I feel the same way, actually. I think my build exceeds in the mirror.

[nitewolf9]

^ I think you guys should fight to the death.

And yeah, I can perfectly well understand why playing 100 games is not feasible, but 20 or 30 is doable. You probably start to plateau out around 20 or so. Also, I'm an advocate of doing testing over a few different sessions (reduces fatigue and adaptability to individual play style).

I'm pretty much splitting hairs though, which is always fun to do when you're bored to tears.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I think the MUC vs. Secret Force matchup would be riveting.

And I'm aware that Mage used to be the normal maindeck threat. I'm aware of Ian's breakout NQG list. I am referring to current trends. Now, granted, my view is slanted by Virginia tournaments because that's where I play. Let's look at SCG results for the last three months;


Mages:
2nd (4 Mages)
3rd (3 Mages)
13th (3 Mages)
22nd (3 Mages)
23rd (4)
25th (4)
26th (3)
29th (4)
30th (3)
60th (3)
Average finish: 23.3

No Mages:
2nd (Hatfield)
21st (Hatfield)
29th
29th
37th (Hatfield)
38th (Hatfield)
45th

Average place: 28.7

And... I'm wrong. The average number of Meddling Mages per build (counting only those that could run them, of course) from these tournaments is exactly 2 (in contrast, the average number of Portents is just over 3). 3 would be a more reasonable compromise, as that seems to be the middle ground. But that only adresses a single point, and one which was always admitted as the less relevant deviation. The cantrip base is more of a deviation, slightly more important is the excessive number of basic lands, and highly relevant is, again, 4 Tinkerers.

[AnwarA101]

Why would that be relevant to the discussion? I'm sure there are some UGw Gro decks not in the T8 running Naturalize and Breeding Pool. That doesn't mean they're worth looking into the statistics for. Generally you want to look at the stats of the decks that do well, not the ones that do poorly (card selection is an ever present factor in the X-2+ bracket). Even if you want to cut deeper, where do you draw the line? t16? t32? The whole event? How would those results be any more relevant than a random 8 man tournament in Bummfuck Kentucky?

Because trying to figure out what is more likely to occur is important. Why not test Goblins with main deck Lightning Bolt? The answer is that almost no build plays that. We aren't sure whether Mage is more prevalent than not playing Mage. If you are trying to figure out a typical matchup it would be based on what configuration most people are playing with. But I agree that all of this is splitting hairs. Playing with Mage may not be the most common build, but it isn't a huge deviation that warrants some major explanation.

[Nightmare]

Jack, how many of those lists are UGw, and how many are UGrw? The two aren't the same deck by any means, and they can't really be lumped together.


...all of this is splitting hairs. Playing with Mage may not be the most common build, but it isn't a huge deviation that warrants some major explanation.

After all is said and done, this is my entire point on the matter.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Eliminating builds running a 4th color would actually drop the number of Mages, as at least two of those builds were splashing Black for Confidant and also running Mage.

[Nightmare]

Fair enough. I wouldn't really count them either, but as I said, it's pretty irrelevant outside the top 8 decks.

[URABAHN]

Wow, deja vu. Haven't we done this before (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=94448&postcount=176)?

This is from only one tournament (one of the SCG DFDs), but that's what I was able to tell from one tournament:

Placement of decking running maindeck Magi:
1
10
49
55
62
(avg 35.40th place)

Placement of decks not running maindeck Magi:
26 (3 in the board)
64
71
(53.66th place)

If there's enough serious interest in this, I could do some more research and make an article out of it, since data from one tournament is interesting, but not terribly meaningful.

Is there such a thing as too many Legacy Articles? I think not! But is there enough new data as you mentioned in the above link?


Takes this for what it's worth. And yeah, we need a lot more data.

[calosso]

I feel the same way, actually. I think my build exceeds in the mirror.

Wanna play 10 games and find out and then test the winning build with a good build of threshold?


Mage has always been terrible when I play against gro. It is just as bad as confidant.

[Machinus]

Wanna play 10 games and find out

I'd be happy to play you IRL.

[Bardo]

The cantrip base is more of a deviation, slightly more important is the excessive number of basic lands

Here, I have to agree. My cantrip base does look a bit different than what people usually run. Basically, it was copied from the 1st place Lille deck (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/gplill05/t8decks) and I've been running it since January.

Over the last year I've tinkered with other configurations (trying Sleight of Hand and Predict), but concluded that they were weak. Regarding Portent, to be perfectly honest, I think it is terrible and most people would do better to drop it and not look back. I really don't want to rehash the cantrip debate again--not here, anyway--and as I said, I just picked the best version that I know and the one I personally would take to a Legacy event. That is why I used my version of Thresh and why Machinus used his version of Goblins. And it's not like I just picked up the deck yesterday and started tinkering with it, you know?

Again, and this is critical, there are no consensus builds for either of these decks. If I wanted to run something other than my own build, I would have to arbitrarily decide between lists that I don't think are optimal.

If anyone would like to do their own analysis using "generic" lists (none of which exist), you're certainly welcome to.


If you are trying to figure out a typical matchup it would be based on what configuration most people are playing with.

This is really impossible to determine.


But is there enough new data as you mentioned in the above link?

I think so. I'll have to take a look.


Mage has always been terrible when I play against gro.

No other card in the deck is as skill-testing and many Legacy players are awful, skill-wise, so I wouldn't weigh your personal experiences too heavily.

[tivadar]

Meddling Mage:
It's the easiest card in Threshold to play terribly. No other card in the deck is as skill-testing and many Legacy players are awful, skill-wise, so I wouldn't weigh your personal experiences too heavily.

Here, here. I run Meddling in my AS deck and the fact is naming the right card is a VERY difficult process. I played against gobbo, and he had a jitte on the table (not a typical build). Typically my mage against them would name ringleader, but he was on 2 mana and I had sofi in hand. I named warchief so he couldn't swing with it next turn (he ended up having warchief in hand and told me later). In addition, even though I run 4x STP, I've had occassions where naming STP is the right move. Anyways, picking the right card is something that can't be done by any formula, you really need to know your deck, know what you're playing against, and know the current board position.

[Volt]

A couple of comments...

1) Bardo's Thresh build is somewhat distinctive with the 18 lands, the cantrip selection, and the one-ofs. Meddling Mage belongs in the deck as far as I'm concerned. It's awesome in some matchups and so-so in others, but it's never terrible.

2) Machinus' goblin build is a bit unusual with the 4 maindeck Tinkerers, and that is certainly skewing the results a little bit. Mind you, I'm not saying they're suboptimal; I think the 4 Tinkerers are pretty tech, actually. I have more of a problem with the 8 fetchlands. Hasn't it long been determined that the "deck thinning" provided by fetchlands is negligible? I think they're more a liability than a help.

[Watcher487]

Do you really want a serious answer this this question? Would you rather we spent several hours documenting the Secret Force vs. MUC match-up?

Yeah I want a serious answer. The description you gave both here and in the article is basically flush fodder for those dumb enough to think there is only 2 decks in the freaking format. I also stated in my post it would be better to look more to the GRAND SCHEME of things like how Thresh would match-up in a certain metagame and what to do vs. a particular deck. Not just shove 20 games of BS that everyone here already knows what happens.

You haven't changed the format over it's head with this article. (Well except with 4 Tinkerer MD Goblins, I guess.) I really do what to know why you actually wasted time documenting Goblins vs. Thresh. YES, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY.

[Anusien]

To be fair, no one cares what the average decklist does against the average decklist. I'm never going to run an average Goblins list or an average Threshold list. I'm going to run the one that is the best against the field. And those lists are exactly that.

Personally, I understand the reasons why, but I'm skeptical about MWS testing, since it tends to deviate so far from real-life decks. It's good that you're up front about it (sorry about the Portland thing Dan). Like, I do it all the time because it's my only option, but the draws become significantly different on MWS from paper. Part of this is because people over-shuffle, and for some reason, the shuffling algorithm breaks down. You should never tell it to shuffle more than 2 times, because it screws you on lands.

Anyway, I liked the article, and I thought it was really good the way you presented the games in multiple different ways. I would avoid the PChapin style; it only works really well for non-interactive decks (it's a perfect match for BDW versus Heartbeat Desire, for example).
Anyway, I think the analysis is really strong. Obviously 10 games is very few, but mega-props for playing SB games too.

Any other final analysis? I liked that you pointed out that Lackey never activated, but I'm wondering what the correlation between active Vial and victory is (drawing on your experience more than this 10 game set).


Yeah I want a serious answer. The description you gave both here and in the article is basically flush fodder for those dumb enough to think there is only 2 decks in the freaking format. I also stated in my post it would be better to look more to the GRAND SCHEME of things like how Thresh would match-up in a certain metagame and what to do vs. a particular deck. Not just shove 20 games of BS that everyone here already knows what happens.

You haven't changed the format over it's head with this article. (Well except with 4 Tinkerer MD Goblins, I guess.) I really do what to know why you actually wasted time documenting Goblins vs. Thresh. YES, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY.
These are two of the best players with these decks in the format, and they still make mistakes. That alone makes reading this worthwhile. What's more is that there are pages upon pages of analysis from the matchup being 60-40 Threshold to 60-40 Goblins. Yes, if you want a primer on Threshold, this isn't it (although Dan wrote that... 4 times :) ). This is, however, the second most or most important matchup in all of Legacy, and it's worth going into depth on. Maybe you already play Goblins or Threshold perfectly, but considering you're not Jon Sonne, I doubt it. If you have something to write, WRITE IT. Otherwise, don't flame people for writing a relevant article.

By the way, the gift horse has BEAUTIFUL teeth :)

[jamest]

All this controversy over decklists is unnecessary. I may not think that the decklisks by Bardo and Machinus are optimal or whatever, but I still found their article very informative. At the very least, they give us a ten game view of the matchup between decklist A and decklist B piloted by players C and D. And it was really fun to read.

[Citrus-God]

I love the deck thinning from fetchlands! IMO, think that it's better versus Thresh because you need that explosive topdeck, as well as the mirror. Getting those Matrons/Ringleaders/SCG are so friggin' important.

[Bardo]

I have more of a problem with the 8 fetchlands. Hasn't it long been determined that the "deck thinning" provided by fetchlands is negligible? I think they're more a liability than a help.

Fetchlands arguably make Ringleader flops stronger.

@Watcher487 - Huh. We're obviously not trying to "change the format over its head," or whatever. We're just documenting a match-up between the two most popular decks in the format and seeing how it goes.

[Watcher487]

These are two of the best players with these decks in the format, and they still make mistakes. That alone makes reading this worthwhile. What's more is that there are pages upon pages of analysis from the matchup being 60-40 Threshold to 60-40 Goblins. Yes, if you want a primer on Threshold, this isn't it (although Dan wrote that... 4 times :) ). This is, however, the second most or most important matchup in all of Legacy, and it's worth going into depth on. Maybe you already play Goblins or Threshold perfectly, but considering you're not Jon Sonne, I doubt it. If you have something to write, WRITE IT. Otherwise, don't flame people for writing a relevant article.

By the way, the gift horse has BEAUTIFUL teeth :)

Wait when did I flame Bardo or Machinus? I know I've flamed you out 2 or 3 times Anus...

And I know especially, that you know everything that happens over on SCG. But I was asking Bardo and Machinus why they made the article, not you.

Now sure this is the "2nd most important match-up" in Legacy, but there is over 1000 different ones that will happen at GP Columbus. I know and you can quote me on this, there will not be more than 25% of either Goblins or Threshold at GP Columbus. The format is just too wide to just say that, you must learn everything about this match-up or you suck, especially if you DON'T PLAY EITHER DECK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Thank you Bardo, now that wasn't so bad, was it?

[Peter_Rotten]

Annoying Calasso references deleted.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Fetchlands slightly thin your non-Goblin cards before a Ringleader, but they thicken them after a Ringleader, so the effect seems pretty negligible to me.

And whether or not these are the optimal lists is besides the points. You're muddling the mixture here. If you want to write an article about why your latest build of Goblins (or Thresh) is the best possible build, do that. But an article on the matchup as it plays out should focus on that matchup, and any changes to the average lists you make should be acknowledge as such and it's effects upon the matchup discussed. There might not be an accepted list, but there are some averages and norms, and some changes are certainly more important than others. 4 Tinkerer is a huge maindeck change that's quite relevant in the matchup, and it ought to be discussed in this article how and why that changes the matchup and it's results.

[Phantom]

Fetchlands slightly thin your non-Goblin cards before a Ringleader, but they thicken them after a Ringleader, so the effect seems pretty negligible to me.


I think the reason I like to play 8 fetches even in a mono Red build is that it improves your first Ringleader. I find that the second Ringleader is much less important. Often times it is troublesome to resolve that first one, and even more often that first one is game over. Also, by the time I resolve the first one I either have 4 land out or a Vial at four so I'm probably not going to need a ton more land. Lastly, if you only send one land down, then you pop a fetch, aren't you pretty much evening out your odds? (actual question)

And also, in matchups where Ringleader is crap or near crap, the fetch build is better for topdecking.

[hi-val]

Watcher487, I'm not really understanding your vitriol here. Anusien's point is that you didn't have to read the article, you didn't ask for the article, and if there were people who enjoyed reading it and learned something, then what's the problem? It obviously wasn't a waste of time and certainly not worthy of cranky forum posts.

Learning how the Goblins/Thresh match plays out gives a wealth of tactical knowledge about how the decks play out in-game, even if one is not playing that precise match.

[Bardo]

Any other final analysis? I liked that you pointed out that Lackey never activated, but I'm wondering what the correlation between active Vial and victory is (drawing on your experience more than this 10 game set).

As I mentioned in the thread at SCG, all of the concluding points are in Part 2. When we started writing the article, I assumed it was going to be only one article, but when we realized it was going to be over 10,000 words we split it into two parts. That's why Part 1 ends abruptly. In the end, the articles together are over 11,000 words.


Personally, I understand the reasons why, but I'm skeptical about MWS testing, since it tends to deviate so far from real-life decks. It's good that you're up front about it (sorry about the Portland thing Dan).

Yeah, I'm skeptical of it too. But, you do what you can do. If you play enough games, the MWS idiosyncrasies sort of balance out and I don't think, overall, our results would be much different than if we played our games at my dining room table. The match feels in the 55-60/45-40 range (favoring Goblins), and going first is a strong indicator on who will win Game 1.


Thank you Bardo, now that wasn't so bad, was it?

No worries or whatever, but your post definitely seemed hostile.


But an article on the matchup as it plays out should focus on that matchup, and any changes to the average lists you make should be acknowledge as such and it's effects upon the matchup discussed. There might not be an accepted list, but there are some averages and norms, and some changes are certainly more important than others.

In theory, I kind of agree. But neither of us would be intellectually honest and comfortable if we did our testing around decks that we felt were weak and less than optimal.

I'll make my offer again: if you or anyone else would like to run this exercise with other lists, go right ahead. However, I don't think your results are going to be significantly different. Against a strong player, Goblins has the upper-hand in this match, though it's by no mean an auto-loss for Threshold. I won most of the games (3-2) in which I went first (preboard); as did Chris when he went first (4-1).

[Bardo]

It took like forever for SCG to post this, but here's Part 2 (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13464.html).

Kirdape's post from the other thread:


It's pretty much as we tested the matchup to work - Crusade is tough to cast and not even a complete game win when it resolves, and Goblins' sideboard is just better than Threshold's is because Tormod's Crypt invalidates Threshold's strategy and denies it the critical turns before Goblins reacquires the advantage in the late game.

[Citrus-God]

Like I said over on TMD, I think Stifle needs to find it's way into the deck. Also, I like your new SB Bardo, but I think you should cut a Armageddon and a BEB for 2 more Stifles. Also, I disagree with siding in another Enforcer, I personally think one is good enough with the stalemate going off. I also disagree with siding out 2 FoW. Hatfield Thresh has a strong game against Goblins, and it doesnt need much to be sided in. All it sides out is the following...


2 Enforcers
1 Counterspell
1 Predict
1 Portent
1 Serum Visions

for

3 Stifles
3 Hydroblasts


And that made the game heavily in your favor.

Also, the upside of Stifles, you can side it in against the mirror to deal with randomness if you expect somekind of hate, but unsure about what it is. It's also good against Combo.

[sammiel]

which thread is the one for discussing the article? lol

[Machinus]

Just read the titles guys. Dan and I wrote the articles with our names on them.

This took a while to get up but I'm happy with the results.

[jamest]

Another good article.

When I saw Machinus siding out Incinerator, I might've let a "WTF!?!?" get out. Glad he corrected that quickly. Also, I don't think REB impacts the game enough to warrant diminishing the deck's Goblin density further. I think the simple +4 Crypt -4 Fanatic is better.

Sphere of Law is an interesting suggestion. It definately poses a threat to Machinus's build. Off the top of my head, I think Goblins could react with Burrows, which is another powerful anti-Threshold card in general.

[Machinus]

Incinerator is very unpredictable, because it is great against small bears, but horrible almost any other time. When I play, I plan on encountering the worst case scenario, which is early threshed Mongoose. Therefore, the incinerators serve only to remove dangerous enforcers later. Against most thresh builds, I wouldn't expect to see any enforcers at all.

[sammiel]

those REBs are huge against threshold, shutting down their cantrips keeps them off their card quality, making them play honest with the cards they have in hand. They also protect your important triggers against stifle.

[Bardo]

What I found most surprising was how damn good Mystic Enforcer is in this match.

Ideally Threshold wants to just lead with a quick Goose or Bear, hit threshold on turn 3 or 4 and keep everything threatening off the board with Daze and other counters while it beats away and forces Goblins to chump block and die--but the cards don't always align that way.

Against a deck running 30+ men, keeping the board position favorable isn't so easily done--that most of Goblins' goons are self-contained sources of card advantages themselves only compounds this.

With Enforcer the ground can be completely mucked up and impenetrable and you can just win anyway. Enforcer is one of the few (only?) trumps Threshold has in the late game, as a lot of games just can't be won in the first 10 turns.

Edit.

I also disagree with siding out 2 FoW.

Yeah, this is definitely experiment, but FoW is really painful to cast against a deck that oozes card advantage from every orifice. Daze is great, CSpell is meh since you need to keep mana open which slows your tempo and Force just hurts. Eh, something to consider.

[Citrus-God]

I'm suprised that you play the Goblins match very aggressively. When I play against it, I always ended up playing the control role, and busting out midgame to bash face. I never really liked drawing Enforcers, but I guess it works.

Also, I think you need to keep the Counterspells and the Forces in. I found Counterspell to be very effective against that deck, and I have done very well just playing control. But since your playing Hydroblasts, I guess they are infintely better than Counterspellls.
I usually dont impulsively play men unless I have Threshold or I have to deal with Lackey.

With your deck, I would try this...

-4 Meddling Mage
-1 Mystic Enforcer
-2 Counterspell

+3 Stifle
+4 Hydroblast

I would try that. Another way to do it is to just side out once Daze instead of the 2 Counterspells, and you side in those cards mentioned, but in a 3/3 split instead.