[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Testing the Pyroclasm Deck

[Anusien]

Wherein yours truly joins the ranks of the writers with pictures (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13670.html).

I'm proud of this article and deck; I feel like it cultivates a lot of work designing, developing and tuning UWR aggro from the original idea provided by Phantoom.* I think I learned a lot over the course of working on the deck, and I hope people can get something out of it.* I'm actually hoping for a lively forum discourse at SCG so please leave commentary.* There is a lot I wanted to say but couldn't for whatever reason.* I think this really proves that tuning is maybe the most important and most difficult step in deckbuilding.* Constantly, like this deck, or Spencer's success with BW Confidant prove that you can dramatically change the outcome of matchups just by optimizing decks.* I like to say that everyone designed this deck; the thing that gave it success was the month or two I spent doing nothing but tuning it.

At some point soon when I get some time I'm going to start a new thread on the deck (discusison on the old one went too many directions and has essentially died).

[Complete_Jank]

"High Tide combo seems extremely favorable"

Wait so you are claiming this deck beats all the tier one decks, yet you haven't tested against Solidarity?


Congradulations, once again you have duped me into reading one of your articles.

[overlord95]

Wow, I just beat some one playing this deck on MWS with Slivers. I hope you feel like shit

[troopatroop]

"High Tide combo seems extremely favorable"

Wait so you are claiming this deck beats all the tier one decks, yet you haven't tested against Solidarity?


Congradulations, once again you have duped me into reading one of your articles.

People are so tough on the internet.

[Anusien]

Wow, I just beat some one playing this deck on MWS with Slivers. I hope you feel like shit
Why would beating the deck with Slivers say anything as to whether the deck beats Goblins/Threshold? Of course Slivers is going to be a tougher match than Threshold; Jotun Grunt isn't nearly as good versus Slivers as it is versus Thershold, and Muscle Slivers quickly make Pyroclasm less effective.


"High Tide combo seems extremely favorable"

Wait so you are claiming this deck beats all the tier one decks, yet you haven't tested against Solidarity?


Congradulations, once again you have duped me into reading one of your articles.
I tested against High Tide, but not as extensively as I did other decks. This actually makes sense because going in it's clear you have good game against High Tide whereas it's not clear about the other decks. Compared to, say, Jesse Hatfield's deck (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=19081), pre-board you are -3 Daze, +1 Counterspell off from his hate, but you can probably put up a better clock (and keep counter backup which playing creatures). Post-board, in place of their 3 Stifle you get 3 Red Elemental Blast which is better, and you get an extra free 4 Meddling Mage. In other words, Threshold dropped Meddling Mage because it didn't need it to beat Threshold, and you have all the relevant hate and more of UGW Mageless Threshold (Daze is less of a factor in the matchup).

[Cavius The Great]

@Anusien - Is there any reason you decided to exclude Ophidian from your build?

[Anusien]

@Anusien - Is there any reason you decided to exclude Ophidian from your build?
Yes, it doesn't do damage and it costs 3. If I wanted an effect like that, I'd run Jushi Apprentice, but I'd rather kill the opponent than outdraw him.

[scrumdogg]

Let's get some hard numbers then, HOW many games did you actually test vs. Solidarity? How many pre-board, how many post-board, and was the opponent a player of quality or some MWS player? What records? Any outstanding flukes from those games? Nobody is interested in 'theoretical' matchups, we want proven results because, frankly, those decks have proved themselves and yours hasn't. Results (hard numbers & info) from Tier 1.5 match ups like TES, IGGy, etc would be good as well. Thx.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I tested against High Tide, but not as extensively as I did other decks. This actually makes sense because going in it's clear you have good game against High Tide whereas it's not clear about the other decks. Compared to, say, Jesse Hatfield's deck (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=19081), pre-board you are -3 Daze, +1 Counterspell off from his hate, but you can probably put up a better clock (and keep counter backup which playing creatures). Post-board, in place of their 3 Stifle you get 3 Red Elemental Blast which is better, and you get an extra free 4 Meddling Mage. In other words, Threshold dropped Meddling Mage because it didn't need it to beat Threshold, and you have all the relevant hate and more of UGW Mageless Threshold (Daze is less of a factor in the matchup).
Actually, I'd say it's pretty clear this deck loses to Solidarity, at least preboard. Not only is it down 2 counterspells from Gro, it has less than half as many draw spells. This grants massive inevitability to Solidarity, and ERA's (oh, sorry, UWR Pyroclasm's, lol) clock is by no means fast enough to make up for it.

I did like that you pointed out the importance of trying out others' ideas, and that a deck built in a vacuum probably won't reach its potential. However, I am disappointed to hear that you skimped on testing. Once you begin incorporating the ideas of others, rigorous playtesting is still going to be necessary to optimize a deck.

[Anusien]

I didn't test against TES, and don't feel that the deck distinguishes itself significantly enough to be worth testing against; I've also never seen anyone bring it to a tournament.

Here's the thing. If I give you numbers, will you believe them? This is not a personal attack. I could say I went 9-11 pre-board and 15-5 post-board against Tide (these aren't the numbers, by the way). If they match what you expected from the deck anyway, you'd believe them. If they didn't, you won't. Even if you buy my testing numbers, if you're smart, you're going to do your own testing. Hell, I could have gone 50-10 against Goblins in testing with Confinement Slide; it still wouldn't have erased those tournament losses against Goblins when whatever went wrong. Plus, my testing was predominantly MWS testing, so it is going to differ from your testing.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Why would beating the deck with Slivers say anything as to whether the deck beats Goblins/Threshold? Of course Slivers is going to be a tougher match than Threshold; Jotun Grunt isn't nearly as good versus Slivers as it is versus Thershold, and Muscle Slivers quickly make Pyroclasm less effective.


I tested against High Tide, but not as extensively as I did other decks. This actually makes sense because going in it's clear you have good game against High Tide whereas it's not clear about the other decks. Compared to, say, Jesse Hatfield's deck (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=19081), pre-board you are -3 Daze, +1 Counterspell off from his hate, but you can probably put up a better clock (and keep counter backup which playing creatures). Post-board, in place of their 3 Stifle you get 3 Red Elemental Blast which is better, and you get an extra free 4 Meddling Mage. In other words, Threshold dropped Meddling Mage because it didn't need it to beat Threshold, and you have all the relevant hate and more of UGW Mageless Threshold (Daze is less of a factor in the matchup).

You have less draw and your creatures are less efficient. You also have less counters than Threshold. I'm more than a little skeptical.

I'm also suspicious of your reasoning behind the Threshold match-up. Needle is very good against you, and they have StP, whereas you have Pyroclasm. They also have more dig and counters. In exchange you have more threats, most of which need either equipment or a Grunt that sticks around to fight their's, and aren't cheap enough to simply overwhelm them. I don't think Grunt in and of itself is quite enough to make up for these short-comings, and you're only running 3 equipment.

[Finn]

Anusien, I think you need to do some more tweaking.

Like everyone else, I messed with this sort of idea. A lot of decks simply fold to Serra Avenger, and it was not available to me when I went in, so I give you that possibility. But in a lot of cases you fell into the same pitfalls I did. Silver Knight is just awful against Threshold - even red Thresh. The deck has no true card advantage and tends to run out of threats. Jotun Grunts are temporary except against Thresh even with all the graveyard filler you have. And you have a lot of balls using four. Plus, your Lackey logic is not quite right. You still don't want the Lackey to hit Unless You Already Have Pyroclasm - especially if they have one of those speed hands or drop a Ringleader with it. And since Pyroclasm is a still a sorcery, if it is later in the game, it could mean death if they reveal a Warchief. And with only Force of Will on the draw to prevent it, Lackey will hit you on turn two - often. Once the sb comes in it gets a lot better, but only two STP?

And that brings me to my next point. How many decent targets are there really for Threads of Disloyalty in the top x decks? I count Werebear and, umm...well that's about it. And in the deck that you will be siding it in against there are only those four legal targets in the deck! Are Werebears really so devastating to you that you need specific answers for it that sit dead if he doesn't hit the table? If your matchup is good against Threshold already, why do you need this kind of win-more card when you only have two STP in that same sideboard? Cut the crap and put the best creature removal ever printed where it belongs.

Don't you still have your Time Vaults? The damned combo is better now than it was before all the bullshit. Why the hell aren't you testing that? Or something. Anything. I can read all about rough drafts of dead-horse designs in the development forums on any of the Legacy sites. I have read your stuff before, dude. I'm being very hard on you because your articles are better than this. Your decks are better than this.

[Anusien]

Since we last tested, I've gotten a better handle on the matchup.
#1: If Vial resolves, they're screwed. It takes almost all their relevant counters offline. They can't let Vial resolve. Sure, they can Needle it, but that's after a lot of damage is done, and then that's one less Needle to use on Jitte.
#2: Grunt is really good. They pretty much have to have StP for it or they lose, since once you stick one, you're going to just win the creature war.
#3: You have really strong defense. 2 Silver Knight take out anything but Enforcer. Goblin Legionnaire takes out Werebear 1 for 1. Grunt trades with anything but Enforcer. Serra Avenger trades with Werebear. This is ONLY if you have to trade. Otherwise you sit back on a defense they can't break through, and just win the long game. Avenger is a reasonable clock here.
#4: The cards aren't as bad as it seems. They have generally, 2-3 Counterspells to your 4, and 3 Daze to your 0. Plus, it's not like the 4 extra Mental Note or Predict or whatever junk they're running now is really all that good; you have 4 BS and 3 Sleight/Serum Visions, so they have maybe 5 extra tempo-stealing cantrips. I'd gladly be able to beat down rather than waste my tempo in that way.

Really, the reason why you win the Threshold matchup, in strategic terms, is that you beat down much better than they do. You make them play the beatdown early and the control deck late when they really want to do it in the other order. Without board clearers, they really don't have any sort of answer to the "Get two Silver Knights out and hold the fort until you overwhelm them with inevitability" plan. Sure, they have EE, but that's going to take out their Werebears, and then afterwards you can drop Grunts and somesuch and take them out. Plus, every EE they dig to is not an StP or a Pithing Needle.


Edits:
Yes, it's behind pre-board to High Tide. This is one of the reasons why 7 hate cards come in afterwards, and those cards are very good to High Tide. And yes, I didn't test as much as I'd like; this is a function of my specific situation in a dearth of Legacy playgroups locally.

Finn: You're wrong. Silver Knight is amazing versus Threshold since they absolutely can't remove it; they're basically cold to the double Silver Knight or Knight + equipment plan. I have tested, not much, but some, against UGR Thresh and I can tell you it is more favorable than UGW Thresh, especially since their trump to creature decks is... Pyroclasm.
I can't understand ever wanting to run less than 4 Grunts, especially since they're amazing against Threshold. The first one hits about twice, and the second one will be around until the end of the game. It's a 4/4 for 2, why would you not run 4? You can easily support it, with 7 fetchlands and 7 cantrips.
I don't think you understand the way the Goblins matchup plays out. Goblins can't help put over-extend into Pyroclasm if Lackey connects. I'm glad when Lackey drops Warchief when I'm holding Pyroclasm, because it's going to take out their board and Warchief is one of the cards that worries me the most. You also have about a hundred different creatures to get in the way of theirs, and yours aren't dying. They have to over-extend to break through Silver Knight + Avenger, which lets you wreck them with Pyroclasm. This is a very favorable matchup; yes they can overwhelm you with Lackey if you don't have Pyroclasm, but that is rare. Plus, in addition to the 2 StP you get 4 Blue Elemental Blast post-board.

Threads is really good against Threshold. You wouldn't critique me for running 4 StP there instead of 2 Threads of Disloyalty and 2 StP, yet StP only has 2 more targets. Threads stealing a Werebear is so much better of a play. StP is good, but if Threads can hit, it's BETTER.


You realize the Time Vault combo no longer works, and most of the interactions are gone right? I really think you need to stop falling back on established thought and re-evaluate things. It's a lesson I was forced to learn while developing the deck.

[Finn]

2 Silver Knight take out anything but Enforcer
This is what you get for testing on MWS. Silver Knights will not take out a Werebear. If the opponent attacks into your untapped Knights, are you going to block? Really, are you? You had better not, because he just might plow one, or Ice it, or something. And then you get 2-for-1'ed. And up until then, your two guys were stopped by one of his. This is the sort of thing that makes you want to pitch them after more testing.

[Anusien]

This is what you get for testing on MWS. Silver Knights will not take out a Werebear. If the opponent attacks into your untapped Knights, are you going to block? Really, are you? You had better not, because he just might plow one, or Ice it, or something. And then you get 2-for-1'ed. And up until then, your two guys were stopped by one of his. This is the sort of thing that makes you want to pitch them after more testing.
Re: Ice: Tapped blockers still deal damage.
Yes, if the opponent attacks into my Knights, I'm going to block. Because he might not have it. And even if he does, I'm going to draw the trick out of his hand and be able to deal with him later. And maybe I have a better trick, like another blocker out of Vial or counters in my hand. He can StP Knight, and then I Vial out Goblin Legionnaire and kill Werebear, at still a 1 for 1. You know why this line of reasoning is flawed? Because if he attacks and I don't block, he's still going to have whatever trick he has. You need to play limited more.
My goal isn't to use Silver Knights to force through damage. My goal is to play defense and establish inevitability. I make them have the trick, because if they don't I'm going to wreck them.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Since we last tested, I've gotten a better handle on the matchup.
#1: If Vial resolves, they're screwed. It takes almost all their relevant counters offline. They can't let Vial resolve. Sure, they can Needle it, but that's after a lot of damage is done, and then that's one less Needle to use on Jitte.

It's one mana. Why is that "after a lot of damage has been done"? They also have 3 Daze and 4 FoW. In total they have up to 9 answers to your 4 Vials.


#2: Grunt is really good. They pretty much have to have StP for it or they lose, since once you stick one, you're going to just win the creature war.

The problem is that they can
A)Counter it
B)StP it
C)Race it for up to two turns if it's a mid or late game Grunt and they have a strong hand.


#3: You have really strong defense. 2 Silver Knight take out anything but Enforcer. Goblin Legionnaire takes out Werebear 1 for 1. Grunt trades with anything but Enforcer. Serra Avenger trades with Werebear. This is ONLY if you have to trade. Otherwise you sit back on a defense they can't break through, and just win the long game. Avenger is a reasonable clock here.

I don't buy this. How do you deal with Enforcer, even if you can clog up the ground in the face of Needle, StP, and counters?


#4: The cards aren't as bad as it seems. They have generally, 2-3 Counterspells to your 4, and 3 Daze to your 0. Plus, it's not like the 4 extra Mental Note or Predict or whatever junk they're running now is really all that good;

What kind of reasoning is that? Predict is very good; it filters away weak cards and digs deep.


you have 4 BS and 3 Sleight/Serum Visions, so they have maybe 5 extra tempo-stealing cantrips. I'd gladly be able to beat down rather than waste my tempo in that way.

You can't beat down against them in the early game unless they don't draw anything. None of your creatures can beat into their's; Knight dies to everything, Legionaire dies to Mongoose, Avenger and Grunt die to Enforcer. Everything dies to StP, and your removal sucks against them. If you don't resolve and stick a piece of equipment or a Grunt before they start beating with Enforcer, you're going to lose this race.

Thus, they're not losing any real tempo by digging. If they play control and focus on dealing with equipment and Grunt, and beating with Enforcer, what actual answer do you have?


Really, the reason why you win the Threshold matchup, in strategic terms, is that you beat down much better than they do. You make them play the beatdown early

Explain that. How do you make them play the beatdown early?


and the control deck late when they really want to do it in the other order. Without board clearers, they really don't have any sort of answer to the "Get two Silver Knights out and hold the fort until you overwhelm them with inevitability" plan.

Mystic Enforcer/StP. I count 6 stand-alone answers, and I'm not sure how often you draw double knight with only 7 cantrips.


Sure, they have EE, but that's going to take out their Werebears, and then afterwards you can drop Grunts and somesuch and take them out. Plus, every EE they dig to is not an StP or a Pithing Needle.

It's only a spell that kills every single threat you play. Touche.

I'm extremely curious what your testing conditions were.

Edit:


Threads is really good against Threshold. You wouldn't critique me for running 4 StP there instead of 2 Threads of Disloyalty and 2 StP, yet StP only has 2 more targets. Threads stealing a Werebear is so much better of a play. StP is good, but if Threads can hit, it's BETTER.

Post-board it has 4 or 5 more targets with Monastery and additional Enforcers, and did you really reflect on the fact that even those "only 2" are 6/6 flyers? Threads seems awful in general; it doesn't do anything to any of the "Stompys" either. A more flexible card(say, the best removal spell ever printed) might serve you better.


My goal is to play defense and establish inevitability.

What inevitability?

[Tacosnape]

Why exactly are you running Force of Will in a deck where you run no Blue creatures and only fifteen blue cards?

And while we're at it, why exactly are you not running a full complement of Swords to Plowshares in either the maindeck or sideboard of any deck running the color white?

This is seriously a deck which could lose to a pre-con if it didn't draw its Jitte.

[Finn]

Re: Ice: Tapped blockers still deal damage.
Yes, if the opponent attacks into my Knights, I'm going to block. Because he might not have it. And even if he does, I'm going to draw the trick out of his hand and be able to deal with him later. And maybe I have a better trick, like another blocker out of Vial or counters in my hand. He can StP Knight, and then I Vial out Goblin Legionnaire and kill Werebear, at still a 1 for 1. You know why this line of reasoning is flawed? Because if he attacks and I don't block, he's still going to have whatever trick he has. You need to play limited more.
My goal isn't to use Silver Knights to force through damage. My goal is to play defense and establish inevitability. I make them have the trick, because if they don't I'm going to wreck them.
Come-on man. I shouldn't have to go over this with you. Only a moron would allow the Knights to deal their damage. He Ices one before damage is on the stack and kills the other in combat. Including the card for Ice and his creature that survived, he 2-for-1'ed you. Now he has a 4/4 and you have a 2/2. In my experience, good players will actually attack into this situation even if they don't have the removal. Because if you block, you are taking a big chance. Yes, yes. Counterspells. You both have them so they are a nonfactor here.

RE: yada yada Goblins, Lackey, yada yada. Whatever. I would estimate that you do well in the Goblin matchup post board, but the deck is still a rough draft. It needs to go to the forums like everything else in that state. And what's wrong with Time Vault, Transreliquat?

EDIT: It takes a lot of guts to post a deck that you claim beats'em all to this crowd. I think you should be commended for going for it. But you should have known better. MWS testing is never, never something to base your conclusions on.

[nitewolf9]

Engineered explosives at 2 is retarded against this deck. It wipes every single one of your threats off the board, and destroys jitte to boot. Just fyi.

[Anusien]

Matt:

Here's the thing with Vial. They're not going to find Needle turn 1. By the time they find it, I'm going to have gotten value at it. If they can't counter my Grunts, they're going to lose. If I can use Vial to get a Grunt and a creature or two onto the board, that's good enough.

Yes, they can race Grunt or they can StP it. But I'm never going to have just Grunt, which means it's hard for them to race, and my goal is to put it out through Vial or test spell it into play via other effects. So like I said, they have to have StP.

You deal with Enforcer by countering it, racing it with equipment, or using Grunt.

Predict is weak, and it certainly doesn't dig deep. My point with the tempo argument is that while they're tapping out to manipulate the top of their deck, I'm putting threats on the table. Essentially, you're spending mana to find threats/answers, where I skipped that and just ran more creatures.
I don't think you understand the dynamic of the match. Turn 3, I'll gladly swing Legionnaire into Mongoose if you're not close to getting Threshold. 2 damage, when you can only swing back for 1. I'll swing with Avenger all day, and I'll gladly swing with Grunt all day long. I like specifically how your analysis is "If you don't stick one of 7 cards before Threshold finds one of their 2 Enforcers, you're going to lose the race".

I make Threshold beat down early by playing a better defensive package then they do. In other words, I have inevitability, so if they are going to win, it has to be in the early-mid game. Over the long term, my 4/4s are better, my 3/3s are better, and you have 2 Enforcers where I have 3 pieces of equipment. Plus, you can't StP the equipment (just the creature), you have to Needle it. Plus if it's SoFI once it comes down, you can't Needle effectively until the creature dies. You could pre-emptively Needle the equipment, but what if I draw the other one?

Mystic Enforcer isn't a reliable answer to double Silver Knight because it's much harder for you to set up Enforcer than I can set up my defense that way. And yes, you have StP, but then we have to get into a counter war you're starting and the defense always has the advantage in Legacy counterwars. In order for you to win it, you need to find one more counterspell than I do. After Daze goes offline, you have 6-7 counters, and I have 8. You need to put STP + 2 counters together to beat me with 2 counters, which isn't trivial.

Edit: Ever notice how in all your hypothetical situations, your deck always draws the nuts and the other deck never does? An extra 5 cantrips doesn't mean you always get your perfect hand, especially when a few of them really really suck (Predict does almost nothing for card quality, for example).

Tacosnape:
"Ready comprehension is often a knee-jerk response and the most dangerous form of understanding. It blinks an opaque screen over your ability to learn. The judgmental precedents of law function that way, littering your path with dead ends. Be warned. Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary."
Mentat Fixe (adacto)
4 StP is not necessarily optimal. In this case, I've swapped the 3rd and 4th post-board StP with Threads of Disloyalty because it's much better on a Werebear. There aren't really any other matchups I want StP in; BEB is better against Goblins, and other matchups are hugely less relevant. The Blue count is a little low, but not so low that I don't want to run it.


Finn:
You're absolutely, 110% wrong. If he attacks with Werebear, he has two options: #1) Play Ice before blockers to tap a Silver Knight. I don't block, he gets in for 4. #2) I block with 2 Silver Knights, he casts Ice before damage is on the stack. Silver Knights both deal first-strike damage and kill Werebear. He does cantrip off the Ice though.
Edit 2: Goblins pre-board is actually really really good; it's your best matchup. This is where the most tuning and testing of the matchup has gone into, actually.

Nitewolf9:
Yeah, EE @ 2 is bad; it was less problematic when I still had Serendibs in the deck. On the flip side, it's easy to avoid dying to because of Engineered Explosives; once you have a dominant position you stop putting threats out onto the board. You still have Vial, so it's not a huge loss. The answer? Just don't let EE resolve.

[Silverdragon]

Come-on man. I shouldn't have to go over this with you. Only a moron would allow the Knights to deal their damage. He Ices one before damage is on the stack and kills the other in combat. Including the card for Ice and his creature that survived, he 2-for-1'ed you. Now he has a 4/4 and you have a 2/2. In my experience, good players will actually attack into this situation even if they don't have the removal. Because if you block, you are taking a big chance. Yes, yes. Counterspells. You both have them so they are a nonfactor here.

As Anusien already said after a creature is declared as a blocker it will deal damage even if you tap it before damage is on the stack. What you are refering to are pre 6th edition rules...
Anyway I agree that double Knight is not that strong against Threshold because the inevitability you are building towards by "holding the fort" does not exist preboard. Your so-called inevitability as I see it consists of Jotun Grunt resetting their graveyard and Serra Avenger flying over for the win. Both of these plays can be stopped by Swords or Mystic Enforcer. There might be a slight edge for you because you have more creatures than they have answers but it is in no way guaranteed that you will win if you get the game into the lategame.
edit: I forgot that you also have equipment so right you are definately favoured against Threshold especially lategame after Daze is shut off however it isn't an autowin an that was what I was trying to say.

[Finn]

You're absolutely, 110% wrong. If he attacks with Werebear, he has two options: #1) Play Ice before blockers to tap a Silver Knight. I don't block, he gets in for 4. #2) I block with 2 Silver Knights, he casts Ice before damage is on the stack. Silver Knights both deal first-strike damage and kill Werebear. He does cantrip off the Ice though.

In this case, I suppose I should have said STP or some sort of removal. The point remains.

[Lego]

Come-on man. I shouldn't have to go over this with you. Only a moron would allow the Knights to deal their damage. He Ices one before damage is on the stack and kills the other in combat.

I'm not sure Anusien explained this well enough, so let me make it real simple for you: once declared as blockers, tapped blockers still do combat damage. Kthnxbye.

[Bardo]

Let's get some hard numbers then, HOW many games did you actually test vs. Solidarity? How many pre-board, how many post-board, and was the opponent a player of quality or some MWS player? What records? Any outstanding flukes from those games? Nobody is interested in 'theoretical' matchups, we want proven results because, frankly, those decks have proved themselves and yours hasn't. Results (hard numbers & info) from Tier 1.5 match ups like TES, IGGy, etc would be good as well. Thx.

Whoa, let's not go overboard here. While debating reasoning and strategies are certainly fair game, I think Anusien is being given an unreasonably hard time here.

In any event, very few decks (if any, ever) are in finished form when they hit the light of day. All require more work than any one person can put into it. That's what makes the Internet so damn awesome for this sort of thing, that dozens of people can point out the holes, suggest constructive revisions, develop sideboard strategies, test different match-ups extensively, etc. This is how mediocre decks become great.

On the whole, I find this thread unnecessarily negative and hostile.

[Anusien]

Every time I read an article that you post a link too I think less of Star City Games. These articles are horrible, and though I know it is difficult to write an article that everyone will appriciate, every article I read seems to lack for most people. I wait for Machinus to post his articles, and hope for the best.

I commend you for taking your time to write an article, as most people won't take the time to do such, and also think you can write better than most. You should be thanked for the time you take to write the article. That said, I don't like what you write. I'm sure I could do better.
Do you have any constructive feedback? Requesting articles on specific topics, or writing posts of article quality and length and posting them here? Any specific analysis? Or are you pretty firmly in the "negative" camp?

Also, Bardo: ^5!
Thanks for the kind words, everyone.

[scrumdogg]

I was not attempting to be hostile, but Anusien has a bad habit of pontificating when he should have been playtesting. And then making claims...which are not backed by fact. I would not necessarily take any numbers given as gospel (as different players in a testing session can make a huge difference) but it would perhaps compel me to explore the deck further. It would also either validate the claims made or show them for more....pontificating. Game 1s are so important in this format as having to win 2x, once when you are on the draw, is moderately difficult. The problem is compounded when you have time constraints as well, as I believe a deck like this can beat Threshold but it is not going to be quick or easy (as I found by testing my WWub deck with a similar creature base over the past year & hundreds of games). Running suboptimal cards (Threads vs STP) as discussed earlier only exacerbates the situation as does the difficulty of finding & sticking some combination of 1-2x Silver Knight & support or an active Vial + SK + equipment or SK + active Vial + Legionnaire. Goblins might have been tweaked to a high win percentage & Thresh might be conquerable, but leaving combo in the 'pontification -woulda/coulda/shoulda' zone doesn't cut it - not when the author claims the deck as the 'answer' to the Big 3. If it was just a deck in a thread, it would get more slack. But when you post it on the premier Magic writing site as a DTB - either put up or shut up as you are now under a harsher scrutiny.

[Complete_Jank]

Do you have any constructive feedback? Requesting articles on specific topics, or writing posts of article quality and length and posting them here? Any specific analysis? Or are you pretty firmly in the "negative" camp?

Also, Bardo: ^5!
Thanks for the kind words, everyone.

Constructive feedback? Well, not really constructive, but how about not negative. I believe your numbers against goblins. How about correcting the fact that about everything in the deck is 2cc.

How about we see articles exploring into the colors of legacy, and what each color adds to a deck, and which colors are best when splashing for different style of decks.

or

How about taking a look at decks that may have not made Top 8's, but have made Top 32's. Looking at deck lists of Top 32 provide a nice look into interesting new ideas for decks. Often many people aren't as skilled as those who make Top 8, but they often try new decks in tourneys. Decks that finish top 32 if played by a better player, or slightly tweaked, can often be Tier one potential, they just need a great player to play them.


I am not in the negative bandwagon, I think I was the only person that thanked you for taking the time to write it.


EDIT:
Also, if you look at my one deck that I contest as strong and Tier 1 in this format you will see a huge long write up, and I did actually test it for months, and is actually a change of a deck that has been perfected for years.

[Finn]

I'm not sure Anusien explained this well enough, so let me make it real simple for you: once declared as blockers, tapped blockers still do combat damage. Kthnxbye.
Thx for the lesson. I feel so enlightened.

Tremendous claims require tremendous proof.
I still look forward to your next offering, Kevin. And you would be right to hold me to equally high standards when reading my next piece.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Matt:

Here's the thing with Vial. They're not going to find Needle turn 1. By the time they find it, I'm going to have gotten value at it.

It doesn't have any value until your third turn, if you drop it first turn. If they're on the play, that's an abundance of time.


If they can't counter my Grunts, they're going to lose. If I can use Vial to get a Grunt and a creature or two onto the board, that's good enough.

That's a big "if" considering they run more countermagic, answers, and dig than you do.


Yes, they can race Grunt or they can StP it. But I'm never going to have just Grunt, which means it's hard for them to race, and my goal is to put it out through Vial or test spell it into play via other effects. So like I said, they have to have StP.

Why is it hard for them to race? You can't swing into their creatures without active Grunt or equipment.


Predict is weak, and it certainly doesn't dig deep.

Saying something is weak without any logic behind the statement is inane. Saying that digging three cards down isn't deep doesn't make much sense either.


My point with the tempo argument is that while they're tapping out to manipulate the top of their deck, I'm putting threats on the table. Essentially, you're spending mana to find threats/answers, where I skipped that and just ran more creatures.

If they spend the first 3 turns cantripping on the play, they can have Mongoose or StP and an ideally-sculpted hand, whereas you maybe cantripped once and dropped a Knight and a Grunt. If you didn't get a Vial to stick and get 2 counters on it by then, you're going to lose the counter-war over Grunt, and then they don't care much what you do.


I don't think you understand the dynamic of the match. Turn 3, I'll gladly swing Legionnaire into Mongoose if you're not close to getting Threshold. 2 damage, when you can only swing back for 1.

Why did they waste time casting an unthreshed mongoose? Who on earth have you been playtesting with?


I'll swing with Avenger all day, and I'll gladly swing with Grunt all day long. I like specifically how your analysis is "If you don't stick one of 7 cards before Threshold finds one of their 2 Enforcers, you're going to lose the race".

Because you run about 40% of their draw and 80% of their counters and 00% of their board-answers.


I make Threshold beat down early by playing a better defensive package then they do. In other words, I have inevitability, so if they are going to win, it has to be in the early-mid game.

I'm getting really tired of having to repeat completely unaddressed points, but let me say it again;

You have no reliable answer to Enforcer.

You are going to lose the answer war because you have a terrible draw engine and a bunch of dead cards against them. On the flip side, they have a very strong draw engine and no dead cards in this match-up. You're going to draw Pyroclasms, extra Vials, Legionairres, and Knights, none of which can put pressure on them.

If your opponent saw you drop Silver Knight and decided that that meant "OMG! I gosta win early game!", your testing isn't credible. Seriously, how did you guys come to the conclusion that Threshold is the beat-down in this match-up?


Over the long term, my 4/4s are better, my 3/3s are better, and you have 2 Enforcers where I have 3 pieces of equipment.

And more than twice as much draw, and answers to your equipment, whereas you have no answers to Enforcer.


Plus, you can't StP the equipment (just the creature), you have to Needle it. Plus if it's SoFI once it comes down, you can't Needle effectively until the creature dies. You could pre-emptively Needle the equipment, but what if I draw the other one?

Assuming you have 4 or 5 mana, they don't have counters, and they don't have an StP for the equipped creature, or God forbid EE.


Mystic Enforcer isn't a reliable answer to double Silver Knight because it's much harder for you to set up Enforcer than I can set up my defense that way.

No it's not. The odds of you drawing double night with 7 cantrips, 3 of which are Sleight of Hand, are much lower than Thresh drawing an Enforcer.

They can spend their first 3 or 4 turns just drawing and answering equipment/Grunt, then cast the Enforcer that they'll most likely have drawn at that point.


In order for you to win it, you need to find one more counterspell than I do. After Daze goes offline, you have 6-7 counters, and I have 8.

A)They run 250% of your draw
B)You're not counting multiple StPs
C)Daze doesn't go offline in a counter war until very late in the game, so your logic is flawed.


You need to put STP + 2 counters together to beat me with 2 counters, which isn't trivial.

You need 4 mana for that to be relevant if you don't have Vial.


Edit: Ever notice how in all your hypothetical situations, your deck always draws the nuts and the other deck never does?

What nuts hands are we talking about here? Can you actually give me an example? Somehow I doubt it. Drawing answers and counters in a deck with 16 or so draw spells and about that many answers hardly seems "the nuts" to me, but maybe I'm just being a negative nancy.


An extra 5 cantrips doesn't mean you always get your perfect hand, especially when a few of them really really suck (Predict does almost nothing for card quality, for example).

You're right. Burning your weakest card to draw 2 cards is so much worse than Sleight of Hand. Effing. Genius.

Also, you run 7 draw spells. They run somewhere around 16. The difference isn't 5. The difference between your draw spells is greater than the number of cantrips you run. And they all dig deeper than SoH.

Who did you test with? What was their build? What was their strategy? I for one would like some details, since everything you've said so far has been pretty dubious. I don't think I'm being negative; I like actual Legacy articles; this "article" is little more than you hyping your untested pet deck. I don't thinking being critical means I've killed Christmas.


In any event, very few decks (if any, ever) are in finished form when they hit the light of day. All require more work than any one person can put into it. That's what makes the Internet so damn awesome for this sort of thing, that dozens of people can point out the holes, suggest constructive revisions, develop sideboard strategies, test different match-ups extensively, etc. This is how mediocre decks become great.

On the whole, I find this thread unnecessarily negative and hostile.

That's why the accepted manner of introducing and testing a new deck is to post it on a forum with whatever testing information you have, then work on it over time with others.

This is very different from writing an article drooling over a deck, telling everyone "And yes, it has a favorable matchup against High Tide, Goblins and Threshold...Okay, I'm trying to come up with some supposed downside to justify you not playing the deck, and I really cannot come up with one", when you clearly haven't done much extensive testing yourself.

It would be asking for intense criticism to simply claim a good match against the entire upper tier; Anusien goes much farther than that. If you can't justify outrageous claims, don't make them. The quick backpeddle on the Solidarity match-up especially makes the rest of his match-up analysis less credible.



Also, this entire Ice conversation is a blatant red herring. Replace Ice with the far more relevant StP and you have the same issue. Saying that you have inevitability because of double Silver Knight is just silly.

[Firebrothers]

Mabey he just wants everyone to play a sub-par legacy deck in Colombus?

All kidding aside I appreciate the work you and Bardo and everyone has been doing for legacy. Although this article seems a little disappointing I don't think everyone needs to eat apart your work and spit it out all over these forums.

Yeah so we all disagree about what to do in specific situations. Ohh I wouldent have blocked the werebear in X situation but vial out the blah blah blah. Who cares, people just either test the deck yourselves or get over it. We all make different decisions and no ones choice is 100 percent correct.

Get out there and help test this deck or stop bickering and test the goblin matchup for your pet decks again.

[Bardo]

I was not attempting to be hostile, but Anusien has a bad habit of pontificating when he should have been playtesting.

For one, sorry for calling you out, my comment was not aimed specifically at you, it spoke more to the general tone of the thread and at no one in particular.


This is very different from writing an article drooling over a deck, telling everyone "And yes, it has a favorable matchup against High Tide, Goblins and Threshold...Okay, I'm trying to come up with some supposed downside to justify you not playing the deck, and I really cannot come up with one", when you clearly haven't done much extensive testing yourself.

Though there were some faults with the presentation of the article (testing, etc.), I can see taking umbrage with Anusien's "this deck is as good as anal sex" marketing approach. Here, I won't disagree. :) The article may be the victim of its own hype. I'm really kinda lenient with these sorts of things and don't take them too seriously, but that's just me.

Anyway, I read the article and liked it. Well done.

[Parcher]

Yeah, so we all disagree about what to do in specific situations. Ohh.... I wouldn't have blocked the Werebear in X situation;But Vial out the blah blah blah. Who cares? People either just test the deck for yourselves, or get over it. We all make different decisions and no one's choice is 100 percent correct.

Edited for spelling. Quoted for massive amounts of common sense.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Edited for spelling. Quoted for massive amounts of common sense.

I'm not sure how either of you are doing more than spamming. Basically you're saying that no matter how blatantly exaggerated a deck's results are, you're being a big meanie by calling people out on it.


We all make different decisions and no ones choice is 100 percent correct.

There is no universal equivocation in strategy. There are good decisions and bad decisions. Good strategies and bad strategies. I suggest you do some actual reading on the subject of Magic strategy. I'd start with Flores.

[Anusien]

That's why the accepted manner of introducing and testing a new deck is to post it on a forum with whatever testing information you have, then work on it over time with others.

This is very different from writing an article drooling over a deck, telling everyone "And yes, it has a favorable matchup against High Tide, Goblins and Threshold...Okay, I'm trying to come up with some supposed downside to justify you not playing the deck, and I really cannot come up with one", when you clearly haven't done much extensive testing yourself.

It would be asking for intense criticism to simply claim a good match against the entire upper tier; Anusien goes much farther than that. If you can't justify outrageous claims, don't make them. The quick backpeddle on the Solidarity match-up especially makes the rest of his match-up analysis less credible.
Actually, the accepted manner of introducing and testing a new deck is to work on it with a small team of players you know offline, and then break it at a tournament. But whatever, most people don't have those resources.

You're wrong on this one, Matt. I did post this online, and developed it over a period of two months, posting here, on TMD and The Source. I also did private testing, solicited feedback, and did development with a number of players. All of which you should have known about before making outrageous claims about how much or little testing I did. I know you should have known, because I included all of this information in the article. You seem to fixate on the fact that I said I goldfished it on MWSPlay and ignored the fact that I took the deck to some of the best deck developers in the Eternal community, like Josh Silvestri (where I stole a lot of BDW concepts) and Rich Shay. Anyway, I'm sorry that no one but me decided to want to take the deck seriously and test it; clearly the deck would never have been on your radar and in your testing gauntlet until I wrote the article, which is one reason why I did.

I never did a quick backpedal on the High Tide matchup. I was only ever claiming favorable MATCH results against the top tier. I don't know if it ever made it to a message board, but I was constantly telling my test partners that the High Tide matchup was alright pre-board and got very good post-board. It's worth noting that while Threshold (in Threshold v Tide) is sitting around, letting its tempo seep out onto the floor in a puddle of ooze by casting all these 1 drop cantrips, UWR is actually putting creatures onto the table and turning them sideways.

I do find an interesting inconsistency in your line of argumentation.

Why is it hard for them to race? You can't swing into their creatures without active Grunt or equipment.

Why did they waste time casting an unthreshed mongoose? Who on earth have you been playtesting with?
You straight up say that in your approach to the matchup, Threshold isn't going to put a creature onto the table until turn 3-4, which gives me at least a full turn to beat down. It means by the time your 3/3 comes down, you're facing at least a bear or two and you'll be down on life. They can't race with one creature because they're hitting for 3 and I'm swinging back for 4. Sure, they can play two creatures and leave one back, but then we get back to the efficiency of Goblin Legionnaire versus Werebear. I suppose they can put together double Mongoose, but by the same token I can find either Grunt or Serra Avenger. Are you going to swing into Avenger, killing your ability to race and letting me go to the end game I want?

80% of their counters is a rather bizarre figure. They have, roughly, +3 Daze -1 Counterspell on me. I figure that favors me easily in the long game, especially when I have somewhere between 3-5 extra mana sources on them (Vial). This also means, incidentally, that I have to use my cantrips to dig for land less often and can use them for threats more often.

I do like your talk of "the answer war", because no such thing exists. I make Threshold have the answers, and part of the reason why I'm favored in the matchup is because there is no such thing as a wrong threat, only a wrong answer. In order to play according to their rules, they need Needle for Vial, Needle for Jitte, Needle for SoFI, StP to match my Grunts, and then Mystic Enforcers for my Avengers. They also need counters for my counters.

For what it's worth, you seriously underrate Legionnaire in the matchup. On his own, he can take out a Werebear on offense or defense, and he helps me make extremely favorable trades (he can let Grunt take out a Threshed werebear without dying). Let's say you've got threshed Mongoose and threshed Werebear to my Silver Knight and Serra Avenger. I play Legionnaire. Do you counter it? Waste an StP? Let's assume he resolves. Do you attack with Mongoose? I can either let it through and crash back for a lot more, or I can block with Avenger and put a prevention from Legionnaire. If I take it, I'm crashing back with everything. If you block any of those with Werebear, they're going to die. Maybe you're smart and shortcut this logic, and just start going all-in each combat. But because I started the attacks first (don't have to wait for Threshold), I'm going to win the race. Your outs in this situation are StP and Mystic Enforcer. Mine are equipment and Grunts. I've got one more out than you, plus I'm winning the race.

[Deep6er]

What do you mean when you say 'alright' preboard? The way I see it, you have no card advantage and your 'clock' has me living to turn six, easy. Grunt isn't the stone cold nuts against me, and you have a fair bit of dead cards. Without a first turn Vial, I might get to turn 7 or even 8. With that much time, I've beaten 5 hard counters. You could only really hope to have 2. If you're going to use your selection to find countermagic, I'm going to have even more time. Post board you have Mages and Blasts. While I agree those are good against me, I have the ridiculous power of Meditate. Your 'clock' will more than likely allow me to deplete your hand, cast a resolved Meditate, then win. Don't get me wrong, I'll test (if I can find someone who wants to play the deck here) and I'll tell you our results. However, I do want to call your testing methods out. How do you test? Do you keep hands based on knowledge of your opponents deck? Do you know card for card your opponent's deck and play accordingly? These are all massively distorting. My testing method (which has been adopted to some extent here) is a realistic tournament exercise, as the likelihood of you knowing EXACTLY what you're opponent is playing and how is rather unlikely in a tournament. However, these are only first impressions and I can only tell you how it looks from someone as experienced with Solidarity as I am. Also, on another note, your article seemed to have a distinct lack of me. That's a thumbs down. I like the parts that have me in them. :)

[Anusien]

Also, on another note, your article seemed to have a distinct lack of me. That's a thumbs down. I like the parts that have me in them. :)
Butts?

For what it's worth, Threshold has no card advantage either. While I didn't test against players of your caliber (herbig never wants to test :(), I did find that your assumptions are mostly correct, except that the opponent wasn't able to fight through counters. Of course in the test games I was getting up to 3-4 mana allowing me to cast 3 counters or so. While my testing partners aren't always the best (I don't have all the top High Tide players locally), I do test properly; allowing takebacks and not assuming knowledge of the other player's deck before hand (but allowing myself whatever knowledge I'd have once I put the opponent on a deck, like knowledge of standard maindeck configurations and common metagame tweaks). In other words, if my opponent plays Mental Note I know what Bardo's list looks like, and if they play Portent I know what the Hatfield list looks like. I alternate going first, and test sideboarded as well as game 1. In other words, I test properly.

I do question your willingness to throw out early Meditates against an active Vial, simply because an extra Jotun Grunt could come out of there. And while I know he's not much more than a minor hindrance, he does beat for 4 starting on turn 3-4.

[Deep6er]

Philistine. I was referencing Red vs. Blue. Caboose telling Simmons, ' I thought you told the story well, (whispers) I like the parts that had me in them.' Jeez, you'd think you'd have forgotten the time I screwed your mother in the pooper. Did she HAVE to tell you about how much she enjoyed it?

Also, dear Jesus, some Yoga or something would be a good idea. Just two words here. Mayonnaise JAR.

[Slay]

You straight up say that in your approach to the matchup, Threshold isn't going to put a creature onto the table until turn 3-4, which gives me at least a full turn to beat down. It means by the time your 3/3 comes down, you're facing at least a bear or two and you'll be down on life. They can't race with one creature because they're hitting for 3 and I'm swinging back for 4. Sure, they can play two creatures and leave one back, but then we get back to the efficiency of Goblin Legionnaire versus Werebear. I suppose they can put together double Mongoose, but by the same token I can find either Grunt or Serra Avenger. Are you going to swing into Avenger, killing your ability to race and letting me go to the end game I want?

Am I missing something? Why does Threshold need to get in a damage race with you simply because your creatures are bigger and they're slightly lower on life? Aren't you missing the option where Threshold gets creatures, then they hold them all back and draw into answer spells? What about your deck makes Threshold attack you?


80% of their counters is a rather bizarre figure. They have, roughly, +3 Daze -1 Counterspell on me. I figure that favors me easily in the long game, especially when I have somewhere between 3-5 extra mana sources on them (Vial). This also means, incidentally, that I have to use my cantrips to dig for land less often and can use them for threats more often.

Threshold also can dig for land less often, as it needs less land to function than your deck.


I do like your talk of "the answer war", because no such thing exists. I make Threshold have the answers, and part of the reason why I'm favored in the matchup is because there is no such thing as a wrong threat, only a wrong answer. In order to play according to their rules, they need Needle for Vial, Needle for Jitte, Needle for SoFI, StP to match my Grunts, and then Mystic Enforcers for my Avengers. They also need counters for my counters.

Isn't the point of Threshold that they can cycle through cards at a rate so that they can get to the answers? Also, you seem to assume that Threshold needs to find the answers immediately or else they lose. Any of the cards you mentioned, aside from perhaps Grunts, can be answered within a timespan of 2-4 turns before they die. That's plenty of time for a deck that can possibly look at 2-3 cards a turn.


For what it's worth, you seriously underrate Legionnaire in the matchup. On his own, he can take out a Werebear on offense or defense, and he helps me make extremely favorable trades (he can let Grunt take out a Threshed werebear without dying). Let's say you've got threshed Mongoose and threshed Werebear to my Silver Knight and Serra Avenger. I play Legionnaire. Do you counter it? Waste an StP? Let's assume he resolves. Do you attack with Mongoose? I can either let it through and crash back for a lot more, or I can block with Avenger and put a prevention from Legionnaire. If I take it, I'm crashing back with everything. If you block any of those with Werebear, they're going to die. Maybe you're smart and shortcut this logic, and just start going all-in each combat. But because I started the attacks first (don't have to wait for Threshold), I'm going to win the race. Your outs in this situation are StP and Mystic Enforcer. Mine are equipment and Grunts. I've got one more out than you, plus I'm winning the race.

How about option 3: Not attack with either Mongoose or Werebear and use your superior cycling power to find answers before you do?

[AnwarA101]

Predict is weak, and it certainly doesn't dig deep.

For what it's worth, Threshold has no card advantage either.

The versions running Predict have actual card advantage. Saying that Predict is weak and then saying the deck has no actual card advantage makes little to no sense.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Am I missing something? Why does Threshold need to get in a damage race with you simply because your creatures are bigger and they're slightly lower on life? Aren't you missing the option where Threshold gets creatures, then they hold them all back and draw into answer spells? What about your deck makes Threshold attack you?


The versions running Predict have actual card advantage. Saying that Predict is weak and then saying the deck has no actual card advantage makes little to no sense.

Finally some common sense.

Kevy, the Kevster, Kevilingo;

My wording was inaccurate. I can only take your word on the amount of testing you've done with the deck. What I can conclude from your discussion of the deck, is that your testing vs Threshold is not valid, because every argument you've made, without fail, relies on the assumption that Threshold is the beat-down in this match-up. That assumption seems completely erroneous; you have more threats than they do; why would they want to try to trade ground beats? They have more answers and dig than you do. It makes more sense for them to play defensively and set up a ground wall of their own, then win with Enforcer. Which build you played against also matters here, since Predict is much better in the control role, whereas Mental Note is really more suited for getting Threshold faster and playing beat-down.

Since you obviously haven't tested the match with that strategy in mind, I can't at all trust your results. Of course you're going to win if Thresh tries to go beat-down on you. MoR=GL. That doesn't prove anything about how the deck will do when facing a correctly-piloted Threshold deck.

Which also brings me back to Threads of Disloyalty; YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WERE-BEAR. Notice that I never contended that you can form a ground wall against Thresh? That's because it's fairly obvious. So why SB a narrow card for one match-up that doesn't help with your weakness in that match-up? That doesn't make any sense.

To win against Thresh you need A)answers to Enforcer, B)more and more diverse equipment, to make Needle less effective. And maybe C)some help against Monastery.

Also, I find it poor policy to side in a narrow and weak *enchantment* when you should assume they'll be SBing in Disenchants to kill your equipment. MoM or StP to get your guys through and answer Enforcer seems a lot more practical.


80% of their counters is a rather bizarre figure.

You have 8 counters vs. their 10. I'm not sure what's bizarre about that.

[Kenderleech]

Mabey he just wants everyone to play a sub-par legacy deck in Colombus?



I dont know about anyone else, but I have been playing my own sub par legacy deck for years.

[Cait_Sith]

Okay, I am going to weigh in. I find the Thresh MU to be skewed and if it concerns me more I will test it myself. As I have not tested it I cannot be certain, but Meta-Analysis is my only real talent in MTG, so I am going with my intuition.

Personally I don't like you Anusien, but don't take that against you, this deck still packs Lightning Angel and therefore rocks. All who disagree will be shot.

[Anusien]

Mad Zur hit it on the dead. I want this sort of feedback, because it helps guide me. Obviously, posts like "hahaha j00 suxxor" are kind of useless, but part of what I use MTS and TMD for is to get feedback and analysis from other people with different experience, because my personal testing isn't omnipotent. Like more properly examining the use of Daze and the role of tempo in the aggro-control mirror.

That said, armchair logic can only go so far.

[frogboy]

If criticism remains basically constructive, cool. If not, personal attacks will be dealt with as needed. I don't think this is an issue yet, but I don't want the thread to deteriorate. This is a pretty good discussion, let's keep it that way.

[Bane of the Living]

Off topic stuff deleted.

Kevin Im also curious what builds of the top 3, aside from Solidarity, that you were testing against. You said most of your testing was done on MWS, does this mean against multiple random opponents or is this with one skilled buddy playing one very up to date goblin deck? It should be known from the last thresh vs gobs debate that we arent keen on seeing Machinus's build represent goblins on a regular basis. Its also fallen out of favor as the prefered build. Were you playing Green Goblin, the build Ive been advocating? It has a much different win ratio against your deck as Ive already learned playing against it. The hooligans are very difficult for you since you rely on vials and equipment to mainstay against goblins. Running vials of your own means your not needling mine. Jotun Grunt and Avenger are a gemplam away from solved and Pyroclasm only needs to show its face once before the opponent learns from their mistakes and plays accordingly. More people are giving Green Goblin more attention for the better mirror and stompy matchups, I suggest you run your deck against it sometime.

Have you played against Chalice of the Void? Pyrostatic Pillar?

[Happy Gilmore]

Since the title of this thread is testing Pyroclasm.dec lets start there. You done some testing against the top tier, established your view that this deck can effectivly compete vs. Tier 1. Others have made a point that based on your own words, both in this thread and in your article, that testing vs. Thresh is invalid due to inconsistencies in the way grow was piloted. So I for one am willing to help you test it. I will see if its possible to do it either this weekend or the next.

Methods that will be used:
1. Alternating
2. Keeping hands based on not knowing the matchup
3. Ten game set

The deck could very well have potential as a metagame choice. And it may require some tweaking before it can "hit the streats" so to speak. I just wish you article was a little more informative on this matchup. Testing it against what I know of Thresh doesn't make any sense. And I want to add my voice to the bandwagon "what did you do to make them play the beatdown?" I've been playing grow since the Big Arse 2 and I can only remember a couple of decks where I was the beatdown deck from turn 1 (Wombat, Rifter, U-control, landstill and thats about it).

[Tacosnape]

Is it just me, or does this deck have ridiculously few things to pitch to Force?

This whole thing seems pretty much like jank to me. Questionable combo matchups, questionable against other aggro-control, and questionable control matchups. It probably beats goblins, but other than that? I can't point at a deck I own where I wouldn't be delighted to have this matchup.

[Happy Gilmore]

yea, its on the low side. But I've seen ATS run with less lol. To be honest I liked the middle list in his article the most, the one with Efreets. It has 20 blue cards which should be enough. I also like the evasion that it has.

[Tacosnape]

yea, its on the low side. But I've seen ATS run with less lol. To be honest I liked the middle list in his article the most, the one with Efreets. It has 20 blue cards which should be enough. I also like the evasion that it has.

I agree. I think this was a much better list with the Efreets.

[Anusien]

I agree. I think this was a much better list with the Efreets.
The Serra Avengers are pretty much better on all accounts, and they directly swapped for Efreets.

Honestly, to my critics, just test the deck. It's very easy to say "In theory, A seems a lot better than B." And I did that with the development of the deck a lot. And then I tested and found out how wrong I was.

Edit: I thought this was made clear in the article, but I guess not. Goldfishing was done against MWS randoms; testing was done against players I know and respect with established builds of the decks. Threshold was, I believe, Mad Zur's last SCG Day 1 list, and Goblins was Machinus's, both because I feel it tests the deck more (Tinkerer can punish Vial and Jitte draws), but it's the more high-profile and I know it saw a lot of play at Pasttime's Legacy a few months ago.

[Slay]

QFT

I think this is whats getting people so fired up. Not just because sourcers are hatemongers but we're also a skeptical crowd of people. Especially when someone clammers a deck the king of tier one.

Has anyone else noticed that most of the SCG legacy articles about so-called 'broken decks the format hasn't caught onto yet' are either about some fish variant or an adaptation of a good extended deck?

[MattH]

Rich and I played some games last night, some of them were with this. The manabase was a serious problem*, and he did run into the too-few-blue problem on several occasions.

Goblin Legionairre in particular was spectacularly bad, being harsh on the mana AND rather ineffective on the board (maybe he's the bomb against goblins and threshold, but elsewhere he's lackluster). Serra Avenger performed admirably. The equipment was powerful but slow (no surprises there) and I have to wonder if it's really all that. It just feels wrong to spend four or five mana and get that little out of it, though maybe I've been playing combo too long.

I might be able to see this beating the big three but it seems to have serious problems* with the "50% random" part of the metagame**. In this, it actually reminded me a LOT of my 3c Loam/Stax deck, which also put up good numbers against the top three but struggled against other strategies.


*Which is not to say "insurmountable", just some issues that I would want to address before I taking it to a big tournament.

**By which I mean the decent "Other" decks, not the 12 year old's draft leavings. Stuff like Ichorid or Aluren, etc. - tier 2 stuff.

[MattH]

Rich was playing UWR deck, I was playing Toad's Aluren deck. Not the most relevant of matchups, but whatever, we were just choosing semi-random lists and throwing them against each other, nothing too serious.

Legionaiire did almost nothing. Serra Avenger was strong ebcause my walls couldn't block it. Pyroclasm was not strong, obviously. Grunt did basically nothing. Jitte was all right but Sword was not - the most relevant ability was the pro:blue so I couldn't chump avenger with Ravens. The mana was not flowing right. One Therapy usually let me not worry about any counters.

This is all from the opponent's POV and talking with Rich afterward. I have not played as the URW deck myself.

[ExplosPlankton]

Isnt it easy enough to improve the blue source problem by swapping 4 goblin legionnaire or 4 silver knight for 4x galina's knight? I would personally rather play galina's knight over goblin on account of the anti-synergy with pyroclasm. If you really need to trade with a threshed bear then u can swap the silver knights and all you lose is first strike but I suppose that then it becomes a problem that galina cant block piledriver so it is probably better to take out goblin if u need more blue. I dont know if this is the deck to do it, but I like the idea of vial + avenger and think it will find a home somewhere. Yes, I know it only speeds it up by one turn but a free 3/3 flying vigilance on turn 3 for free sounds pretty good to me.

[Anusien]

Isnt it easy enough to improve the blue source problem by swapping 4 goblin legionnaire or 4 silver knight for 4x galina's knight? I would personally rather play galina's knight over goblin on account of the anti-synergy with pyroclasm. If you really need to trade with a threshed bear then u can swap the silver knights and all you lose is first strike but I suppose that then it becomes a problem that galina cant block piledriver so it is probably better to take out goblin if u need more blue. I dont know if this is the deck to do it, but I like the idea of vial + avenger and think it will find a home somewhere. Yes, I know it only speeds it up by one turn but a free 3/3 flying vigilance on turn 3 for free sounds pretty good to me.
My logic is predicated on a few things:
A) If you'll notice, I address Galina's Knight in the article. At the moment, I feel like having Goblin Legionnaire to stop the end of turn Goblin Warchief, untap and play Matron, Piledriver, Piledriver and swing for lethal is rather significant. I've also found it useful to kill Goblin King which was letting my opponent try and landwalk through.
B) The thing is that Silver Knight and Goblin Legionnaire are both better against Threshold than Galina's Knight. Silver Knight is obviously better against Goblins than Galina's Knight, and I maintain that Goblin Legionnaire is better against Goblins than Galina's Knight as well. So it becomes a question of whether having 19 blue spells is important to make the deck run better. I maintain that the blue card count is not an objective indicator of goodness of the deck (especially since I frequently sideboard Force of Will out in fish-style mirrors). I think you'll find if you test the deck that the blue count is low, but would you really want to throw away a creature anyway? It's possible Force of Will is the wrong card anyway, but that feels like a rather dramatic move.

Interesting, Matt. I think you have pointed out how much the deck's performance drops off against non-Tier 1 decks. I do think you understand Jotun Grunt's ability there as a beater, but Aluren really doesn't put a lot of cards in its graveyard anyway.

[Finn]

Silver Knight is obviously better against Goblins than Galina's Knight
Help a dummy out here - why? This seems like a really good place to improve the blue count.

[AnwarA101]

Help a dummy out here - why? This seems like a really good place to improve the blue count.

Silver Knight is not blue which means it can block Piledriver.

[Finn]

Ahh. This is true. And therefor can not be red blasted either. Hmm. That is a hard choice then.
EDIT:
I want to mention that I tried this deck out, Anusien. It plays very well against counterspells and Fish-sized goblins and such. But, when the Goblin player gets a defensive hand, it makes the matchup much harder. I was playing RwGoblins, and for a while I was consistently able to keep my opponent from managing two white during his main phase. It forced him into a corner when he was finally able to escape my hold. And I overwhelmed him in three strait games. Of course, those were not the first or only three games we played (I disenchanted Aether Vials several times). The preboard matchups, interestingly were better for your deck than after sb. He won most of those.

Gobs: 2-4 preboard
Gobs: 3-1 postboard

He did not complain about lack of blue cards to pitch to FoW. But of course, the Wastes and Ports were an issue.

[Anusien]

What was the Goblins maindeck like, and how did each player board? Can you elaborate more on each player's approach to the matchup: what starting hands were kept, who was beatdown/control, how often equipment came up, etc.

Edit: What does a defensive Goblin hand look like?

[Finn]

What was the Goblins maindeck like, and how did each player board?


I used Coppola's monored Goblins with 4 Tinkerers.
I boarded

+4 Red Blasts
-4 Fanatic

He did

-2 Grunts
-2 Sleight
at first, but then changed when he lost the first game with Grunts in hand and no way to support them.

-4 Grunts
+4 Blue Blast
which worked a little better


Can you elaborate more on each player's approach to the matchup: what starting hands were kept, who was beatdown/control, how often equipment came up, etc.


Sorry I don't have this level of detail about my playtesting partner. I am only telling you this for the sake of reporting info. I'm not writing report. :) Though, I will tell you that I was able to keep his equipment from ever touching me thanks to all the Tinkerers. And on the games where I kept him from white mana, I Red Blasted Brainstorm several times to keep it that way. So you could say that I was pulling answers when I needed them.

I hope this helps

[Phantom]

I can't believe I haven't seen this article before now. First, thanks for mentioning me and posting my build. You didn't have to do either, but I appreciate both. Second, if I ever get a chance to test again I'll definitely test your build and give you my thoughts.

I'm glad to see that the number of equipment has stayed consistent throughout. I got a lot of crap about it, but 1 Sword and 2 Jitte just feels right when you play it. Good luck tuning your build!

P.S. My initial thoughts on Threads of Disloyalty is that it's just too damn narrow. I mean, even when you board it in vs Thresh you have 4 Werebear targets (which aren't exactly fantastic grabbing creatures since you have no guarantee of Threshold, especially running 4 Grunts) and X crappy Mage targets.

Are there any other decks you have in mind for this card? You don't board it against Goblins or almost any other aggro deck. It takes care of almost no creatures that clasm and Legionnaire don't handle. Plus, it'd UU so dedicated LD (like, say Homebrew) can keep you off the mana to cast it. Basically, I can see it being slightly better than StP in some situations and vastly worse in the majority of matchups.

[Anusien]

I don't get it. Why did you board that way? I specifically laid out sideboarding for that matchup (more specifically because that's the build I tested the most against). In this case, you go -4 Counterspell, -2 Force of Will, +4 Blue Elemental Blast, +2 Swords to Plowshares

-4 Counterspell +4 Blue Elemental Blast: BEB is strictly superior to Counterspell here, since it does basically all the functions and more for half the mana
-2 Force of Will +2 Swords to Plowshares: I didn't like this at first, but Rich Shay convinced me to try it and it turns out to be right. Force of Will really sucks in this matchup; the only reason you pull Counterspell first is because you're literally never going to have UU ready, and everytime you try to counter something you're going to walk into Wasteland. StP is just randomly more useful than FoW here.

The fact that your playtest partner is pulling Grunts post-board tells me that he's not playing them right, and most likely isn't approaching the matchup optimally. And that's ignoring the fact that he basically boarded out a land at first (2 cantrips = 1 land). In other words, I was excited every time I saw Jotun Grunt, and I was winning in testing pre-board. Jotun Grunt is usually not the first creature to come down, simply because Goblins puts fewer cards in their graveyard than other builds. The purpose of Grunt is basically to be enormous. You dump him out end step and untap and start attacking, or occasionally you play him into a ground stall. He's also one of your best bets for picking up equipment because he's much more difficult to Incinerate than Serra Avenger (playing out 4 goblins is begging for a Pyroclasm).

Generally you want to start fetching Islands with Polluted Delta and Plains out of Flooded Strand, keeping any fetchlands you don't need back to give you Rishadan Port/Wasteland immunity. You never fetch Volcanic Island until you need to cast Pyroclasm or shock with Legionnaire.

Yes, preboard should be good for this deck, 65% sounds about right (maybe 70, but that's sort of extreme), but we're working with a small size. I do however seriously doubt the post-board testing results for the reasons stated above. It's certainly not a 25-75 matchup. Like, Red Blast is barely relevant in the matchup; for targets you have 7 cantrips and my 4 Blue Elemental Blasts, 2 Force of Will. Please hold mana open for that instead of attacking.

In other words, thank you for the results, but I don't put a lot of weight to your testing results since your opponent of unknown skill boarded incorrectly and probably played the matchup incorrectly. It's a fairly easy matchup to play once you get the hang of it.


When approaching sideboarding versus Threshold, I basically stole as much as I could from T1 decks fighting Fish. Threshold has somewhere between 10-14 creatures:
0/4 Meddling Mage
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Werebear
1-2 Mystic Enforcer

StP is excellent versus Mystic Enforcer, good versus Werebear, and decent against Meddling Mage.
Threads of Disloyalty is worthless versus Mystic Enforcer, excellent versus Werebear, and mediocre versus Meddling Mage.

There really aren't any other matchups that went into consideration here, so we'll just focus on these two.

Mystic Enforcer isn't the real threat in the matchup, Werebear is. Everytime I played the matchup, Threshold had either gotten 2-3 creatures online and beat my face in before I could stabilize, or I got a defense going and wrecked them, using Grunt to take Mystic Enforcer offline. The theory behind Threads of Disloyalty is that it solves the first situation much better than the second situation. I went with a 2/2 split because A) I'm not 100% sure how those slots should be split, B) Sometimes Mystic Enforcer does hit the table, and C) for random decks like Reanimator.

[Anusien]

Slight Necro, but it's congruent with the original aims of the thread.
Hi-Val found this link (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=7302), wherein the deck takes 6th in a 75 person event.
Maindeck changes are -1 Plains, +1 Snow-Covered Plains, -1 Polluted Delta, +1 Plateau (which makes some sense)
Slightly modified sideboard, which I'd love to discuss.* Thoughts on that SB?

[Finn]

Very cool. Actually, I did some more testing of my own. This time I piloted the deck myself, and I rather like the flow of it. I am going to back down a step from my position. It has potential in a predictable meta.

[Anusien]

Very cool. Actually, I did some more testing of my own. This time I piloted the deck myself, and I rather like the flow of it. I am going to back down a step from my position. It has potential in a predictable meta.
Yeah. Sadly, I will admit that the deck does fair sort of poorly against randomness. It will probably lose consistently to a good pilot with Angel Stompy or Survival of the Fittest (most Survival decks are better at board control than you, and you have trouble stopping Survival from coming down, esp. on the draw). Test results suggest that you're behind against TES because of the difficulty of using Mage, how poor REB is (Chant might be better, unsure at this junction).

I think I'm switching to 3 Serum Visions instead of Sleight. Adriaan's arguments over on SCG are very compelling.

But yeah, this is very exciting stuff.

[MattH]

Chant is wayyyy fucking better than REB against pretty much every combo deck. Unless you're facing, uh, Tog I guess, Chant is the way to go.