PDA

View Full Version : [Article] Unlocking Legacy – Black Threshold, Part I



AnwarA101
11-19-2007, 08:25 AM
Link (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15030.html)

"Christopher Coppola describes the development process of Threshold during the last few months, both due to format changes and strong new cards. He also reports on his finals split from Day 2 of the Mana Leak Open III, and introduces the new Black Threshold deck."

I enjoyed it, but I'm still wondering how he beat Landstill and why he got paired against me.

Citrus-God
11-19-2007, 11:04 AM
Amazing list. IMO, you dont need Confidants if you're going to play Black - it's all about the Thoughtseize. Just forcing down Counterbalance is just gravy. Sea Drakes are awesome too. Being a 3c card makes a difference.

I'm glad you did well with that list. But it is lacking a decent answer against cards like Enforcer. Sometimes they can just randomly topdeck it midgame. And with so many cantrips, the chances of them seeing an Enforcer is rather high.

Lukas Preuss
11-19-2007, 11:37 AM
I liked it as well, good job! I would have liked you to cover the Dark Confidant thing though, since he should at least be considered when building a black aggro control deck that could benefit from an efficient card drawing engine.

Lego
11-19-2007, 12:35 PM
Confidant is in the board for the matchups where he really matters (Landstill, the mirror, Combo.) I played the deck day 2, and in addition to going to 4 Ghastly Demise and 3 Sea Drake, we stuck 2 Confidants in the main. He was stellar all day, and I will definitely keep him main, but I wouldn't argue very strongly against playing him out of the board.

I love the deck, and I think it's a very strong choice, but I worry about its inability to deal with a resolved Mystic Enforcer or Black Creature. Seeing a turn one Dark Confidant when playing against combo is rough, and you're basically going to lose to random rogue Sui decks. Also, as is, it doesn't test as well as I'd like against Landstill. The sideboard most likely needs to change to deal with that.

Enough about the deck though; on to the article! I enjoyed it a lot, as is usually the case with your articles. The discussion of the evolution of the deck was fun to read, and helpful as well, and everyone likes a mini-tournament report. Can't wait to read Part II :smile:

BreathWeapon
11-19-2007, 04:29 PM
I don't get Portent over Dark Confidant at all, just between Thoughseize, Ponder and Sensei's Divining Top you have more than enough 1 drops, and that's not even counting Nimble Mongoose and Ghastly Demise. Ok, you don't "have" to play with Dark Confidant, but why wouldn't you play with him?

Lego
11-19-2007, 04:45 PM
I don't get Portent over Dark Confidant at all, just between Thoughseize, Ponder and Sensei's Divining Top you have more than enough 1 drops, and that's not even counting Nimble Mongoose and Ghastly Demise. Ok, you don't "have" to play with Dark Confidant, but why wouldn't you play with him?

Having those early cantrips is pretty essential. Even when we put Confidant in, we only dropped two Portents (leaving us with a random one-of Portent that I never thought was pretty, but was usually happy to see.) The more cantrips you run, the more consistent you tend to be (to an extent, of course.) I'm sure others can answer the question much better though.

Mental
11-19-2007, 08:06 PM
It was an interesting article, I'm looking forwards to part 2 where I assume he'll present match up analysis and card explanations. However, it looks very strong and original.


I don't get Portent over Dark Confidant at all, just between Thoughseize, Ponder and Sensei's Divining Top you have more than enough 1 drops, and that's not even counting Nimble Mongoose and Ghastly Demise. Ok, you don't "have" to play with Dark Confidant, but why wouldn't you play with him?

IMO, Dark Confidant + Thoughtseize + Fetchlands = Too much life loss.

Lego
11-19-2007, 10:12 PM
It was an interesting article, I'm looking forwards to part 2 where I assume he'll present match up analysis and card explanations. However, it looks very strong and original.



IMO, Dark Confidant + Thoughtseize + Fetchlands = Too much life loss.

The only time this approached relevant for me in CT was against TES, when I fetched 3 times, Thoughtseized 3 times, and Confidant revealed Force of Will. Then Tarmogoyf saved the day. And in the matchups where that life matters, Thoughtseize often saves you more than 2 points of life. And Confidant rarely hits for more than a point, what with Ponder, Brainstorm, and the amazing SDT.

The life loss can be a lot, but whenever you're losing that much life, it means you've got active Confidant, and you're Thoughtseizing and Forcing important stuff, so you probably aren't in any danger ayway.

Goaswerfraiejen
11-19-2007, 10:18 PM
I don't get Portent over Dark Confidant at all, just between Thoughseize, Ponder and Sensei's Divining Top you have more than enough 1 drops, and that's not even counting Nimble Mongoose and Ghastly Demise. Ok, you don't "have" to play with Dark Confidant, but why wouldn't you play with him?

Because Thoughtseize + FOW + Fetchlands + Dark Confidant = so much life loss that it's likely to cost you games. Also, Ponder + Brainstorm + Top is more than enough draw power.

From my experience playing with and against black-based decks, Confidant quickly becomes a liability in this metagame (that is, one saturated with fetchlands and cheap but huge beaters). When I see a Confidant hit the board, I usually let it stick around--unless the game is at the point where you're put at a greater disadvantage by the drawing that he generates--simply because it rounds out Tarmogoyf damage and can even force the opponent to misuse resources (spending mana to cantrip or Top at inopportune moments/to put the wrong sorts of things atop the library [e.g. putting a swamp on top of Tombstalker], etc.). None of that is to say that Confidant is a bad card, just that its role--especially in black-splash Thresh--needs to be considered very carefully. I've advocated cutting the Confidant for ages now, but have pretty much been mistreated for it. I'm glad to see someone finally seriously entertaining the idea (SBing him is a small but important first step) and getting away with it. God knows it was hard enough for me to get away with Confidants absence in my own deck. :wink:

EDIT:



The life loss can be a lot, but whenever you're losing that much life, it means you've got active Confidant, and you're Thoughtseizing and Forcing important stuff, so you probably aren't in any danger ayway.

That's true to a certain extent, but it also has to be noted that neither Thoughtseize, Confidant, nor Force of Will answers an existing board position. Consequently, it's the threat that you can't Thoughtseize or Force away that becomes problematic, because it gets added to a whole whack of life loss. That much early disruption can definitely be crippling early on, but the longer the game goes, the more the life loss gets felt. If you're forced into an essentially reactive role with Confidant/Thoughtseize/FoW, you are the one in trouble, because it's the threat that's forced through or protected that will be problematic. With as much draw power as Thresh has open to it, there's no need to add too much more life loss.

Mental
11-19-2007, 10:36 PM
The only time this approached relevant for me in CT was against TES, when I fetched 3 times, Thoughtseized 3 times, and Confidant revealed Force of Will. Then Tarmogoyf saved the day. And in the matchups where that life matters, Thoughtseize often saves you more than 2 points of life. And Confidant rarely hits for more than a point, what with Ponder, Brainstorm, and the amazing SDT.

The life loss can be a lot, but whenever you're losing that much life, it means you've got active Confidant, and you're Thoughtseizing and Forcing important stuff, so you probably aren't in any danger ayway.

I haven't tested, but I assume it would also suck against Goblins and Burn. or basically anything that isn't control. Plus, the card advantage you get from it is often negligible against decks that can fight right through it, like burn, or goblins with an active vial.
Also, what Goaswerfraiejen said.

Citrus-God
11-20-2007, 11:25 AM
Having those early cantrips is pretty essential. Even when we put Confidant in, we only dropped two Portents (leaving us with a random one-of Portent that I never thought was pretty, but was usually happy to see.) The more cantrips you run, the more consistent you tend to be (to an extent, of course.) I'm sure others can answer the question much better though.

And that consistency can help set-up Counterbalance/Top. The more cantrips you run = the more cards you see = Counterbalance/Top set up early.

I remember Mad Zur telling me he won a mirror match against Obfreely because of Confidant. I might stop underrating it, because after seeing him in action, I think he needs to be considered. I would probably cut the random Portent for it because Confidant is usually better early game.

hi-val
11-20-2007, 03:37 PM
Whenever I think of Confidant, my mind also goes to Night's Whisper. We can draw some clear analogies. I think we go through a heuristic calculation in these cases and ask whether slower, potentially more powerful card draw on the most fragile card type in the format is better than a smaller, quicker burst of cards that doesn't swing in. With Tarmogoyfs and Sea Drakes, I'm not sure Blobby will be having to carry a lot of weight attacking. If you're considering Confidant, it may help to consider NW as well.

Lego
11-20-2007, 04:48 PM
That's true to a certain extent, but it also has to be noted that neither Thoughtseize, Confidant, nor Force of Will answers an existing board position. Consequently, it's the threat that you can't Thoughtseize or Force away that becomes problematic, because it gets added to a whole whack of life loss.

This was actually the biggest problem I faced when testing the deck. With or without Confidant, a resolved threat can sometimes be difficult to deal with. Resolved creatures usually aren't a problem though, as yours are often bigger. Also, Confidant is very seldom a liability in these positions, as he'll usually just Chump.


I haven't tested, but I assume it would also suck against Goblins and Burn. or basically anything that isn't control. Plus, the card advantage you get from it is often negligible against decks that can fight right through it, like burn, or goblins with an active vial.
Also, what Goaswerfraiejen said.

See above. Against Goblins, he just chump blocks. Against Burn, your opponent will usually get rid of him. If they don't, you'll probably draw into enough goods to set up CB/Top, and just ride Confidant to the win.


Whenever I think of Confidant, my mind also goes to Night's Whisper. We can draw some clear analogies. I think we go through a heuristic calculation in these cases and ask whether slower, potentially more powerful card draw on the most fragile card type in the format is better than a smaller, quicker burst of cards that doesn't swing in. With Tarmogoyfs and Sea Drakes, I'm not sure Blobby will be having to carry a lot of weight attacking. If you're considering Confidant, it may help to consider NW as well.

This is actually a good point. I used to play Night's Whispers waaaay back in Black Thresh, but I have to be honest; I never even thought about it this time around. It seems like in a lot of matchups it might be better. Confidant is more powerful in the long run, and being a creature is actually good for you, both being able to attack, and occasionally chump. But in the matchups where Confidant really shines, he's either going to draw removal away from Tarmogoyf/Sea Drake, or stick around long enough to gain a lot more CA than NW.

I'll have to test it though.

Hoojo
11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
Whenever I think of Confidant, my mind also goes to Night's Whisper. We can draw some clear analogies. I think we go through a heuristic calculation in these cases and ask whether slower, potentially more powerful card draw on the most fragile card type in the format is better than a smaller, quicker burst of cards that doesn't swing in. With Tarmogoyfs and Sea Drakes, I'm not sure Blobby will be having to carry a lot of weight attacking. If you're considering Confidant, it may help to consider NW as well.

Pros of Dark Confidant:
1. Possible 1.28 life loss assuming you draw at least one card (2 Dark Confidants main in the place of 2 Portents.)
2. Unlikely, but it can attack and win the game.
3. Greatest benefit when in play for two turns.

Pros of Night's Whisper:
1. Gain extra card instantly for .72 extra point of life.
2. Same benefit when cast at any time in the game.

I really can't think of anything else to add.

As for the article, I liked it. Lots of information, well organized, and easy to follow. While not as much of a "conversation with the reader," it gets the job done.

Nihil Credo
11-21-2007, 01:54 PM
Everyone should keep in mind that Machinus' list is a different approach from what we've used to. Until now, there was aggro Thresh (UG and UGR, mostly), and control Thresh (UGw and most UGb lists, except Bardo's :P).

Machinus' list is much closer to the aggro approach, but he overloads on disruption as opposed to beatdown: he took out Red's burn and replaced it with Thoughtseize. This is why maindeck Confidant is not optimal in his "disruption Thresh" approach, whereas it's a godfuckingsend in control Threshold. It's also why he doesn't play the awesome Tombstalker instead of Sea Drake... because to him, a 4/3 for 3 with a heavy drawback it's better than a 5/5 for 2 just because it can be cast turn 3.

I have two complaints with an otherwise fine work:

1) That you didn't mention your design philosophy in the article; I understand that this is Part 1, but just a quick "Here's what I wanted to achieve in this list" would have prevented everyone and their brother from asking "Why not maindeck Bob??!!"

2) I'm not exactly sure of the merits of disruption-Thresh. It seems to me that it's best in the matchups that Thresh already dominates: combo, non-Goblins aggro and non-Thresh aggro-control. Aggro-Thresh is better against Goblins and nonblue control, whereas Control-Thresh is better against blue-based control and most other Thresh builds (man, the mind reels at how much I'd have to write to explain my claims in this paragraph...).

AnwarA101
11-21-2007, 02:03 PM
2) I'm not exactly sure of the merits of disruption-Thresh. It seems to me that it's best in the matchups that Thresh already dominates: combo, non-Goblins aggro and non-Thresh aggro-control. Aggro-Thresh is better against Goblins and nonblue control, whereas Control-Thresh is better against blue-based control and most other Thresh builds (man, the mind reels at how much I'd have to write to explain my claims in this paragraph...).

I have to disagree with the premise of your argument. A well-built version of Threshold should be able to switch into aggro or control mode based on what it needs to do. I think versions that opt for this strategy instead of predetermining what their strategy is are bound to do better because they can adapt to the diversity of the Legacy metagame.

hi-val
11-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Pros of Dark Confidant:
1. Possible 1.28 life loss assuming you draw at least one card (2 Dark Confidants main in the place of 2 Portents.)
2. Unlikely, but it can attack and win the game.
3. Greatest benefit when in play for two turns.

Pros of Night's Whisper:
1. Gain extra card instantly for .72 extra point of life.
2. Same benefit when cast at any time in the game.

I really can't think of anything else to add.

As for the article, I liked it. Lots of information, well organized, and easy to follow. While not as much of a "conversation with the reader," it gets the job done.

I think the biggest thing is whether you're willing to risk a slower but stronger draw element for something that can die to creature removal. I'm not sure if this example is going to complicate things or not, but it'd be like the choice between Tidings and Future Sight when everyone runs 4 maindeck Erase. If you can keep that stuff from hitting, then the Future Sight will possibly pay off far more.

I feel like I'd rather hitch my wagon to NW. This reminds me, btw, of a calculation I would do whenever I put Confidant in my decks. I'd ask if NW was better or even an option. If it was better, I'd often further ask if I even wanted the draw effect. It was a mental calculation I'd do that would save me from putting Confidants in decks that I didn't need them in. I suppose you essentially ask yourself with this deck whether you need all those extra draw effects.

Nihil Credo
11-21-2007, 02:27 PM
I have to disagree with the premise of your argument. A well-built version of Threshold should be able to switch into aggro or control mode based on what it needs to do. I think versions that opt for this strategy instead of predetermining what their strategy is are bound to do better because they can adapt to the diversity of the Legacy metagame.

All Thresh decks are able to switch roles. Aggro-Thresh plays control against Goblins and Sligh. Control-Thresh plays aggro against Landstill.

The way you build your deck, however, affects how well you play either role: surely you'll agree that Bolts is generally better than StP or Demise in the aggro role, and worse in the control one? The longstanding dispute between Mental Note and Predict is based on this - deciding what role is best to play in each matchup. Ditto for the German-style vs. Hatfield-style discussion in the UGr thread.

AnwarA101
11-21-2007, 02:41 PM
All Thresh decks are able to switch roles. Aggro-Thresh plays control against Goblins and Sligh. Control-Thresh plays aggro against Landstill.

The way you build your deck, however, affects how well you play either role: surely you'll agree that Bolts is generally better than StP or Demise in the aggro role, and worse in the control one? The longstanding dispute between Mental Note and Predict is based on this - deciding what role is best to play in each matchup. Ditto for the German-style vs. Hatfield-style discussion in the UGr thread.

I agree that your role is relative to what your opponent is playing. The problem is that while Bolt maybe better when you try to play aggro, it doesn't make your strategy more aggressive by itself. Bolt is mainly in the deck because you can kill lots of creatures with it in Legacy. The fact that you can point it at a control player is an added bonus, but not the main purpose of the card in the deck.

Nihil Credo
11-21-2007, 02:52 PM
I agree that your role is relative to what your opponent is playing. The problem is that while Bolt maybe better when you try to play aggro, it doesn't make your strategy more aggressive by itself.
Doesn't "make your strategy more aggressive by itself" just mean "make it easier for you to assume the aggro role", which is what Bolt does?

A simple scenario: you've got two Mongeese against your opponent's Troll Ascetic. Your opponent is at six life. With a Bolt in hand, you'll play aggro i.e. swing and dome. With a Demise/StP in hand, you can't play aggro even though your opponent is at a low life total: you have to assume the cotnrol role, i.e. stay back and wait to draw either a fliers or a bunch of Tarmogoyfs, knowing that the removal spell in your hand has already nullified the next non-Shroud creature your opponent draws.

AnwarA101
11-21-2007, 03:19 PM
Doesn't "make your strategy more aggressive by itself" just mean "make it easier for you to assume the aggro role", which is what Bolt does?

A simple scenario: you've got two Mongeese against your opponent's Troll Ascetic. Your opponent is at six life. With a Bolt in hand, you'll play aggro i.e. swing and dome. With a Demise/StP in hand, you can't play aggro even though your opponent is at a low life total: you have to assume the cotnrol role, i.e. stay back and wait to draw either a fliers or a bunch of Tarmogoyfs, knowing that the removal spell in your hand has already nullified the next non-Shroud creature your opponent draws.

Well, this is just a case of your removal spell (Bolt) being able to provide reach. So you can go "aggro" because you have a burn spell. If you are saying that Burn spells let you go aggressive in certain situations, then yes the deck is more aggressive. But going from 4 Bolts to 4 STP doesn't neccessarily make the overall strategy more aggressive. If you play UGR are you going to make all your decisions based on the fact that you have 4 Bolts left in your deck? In general this won't be the case, even though it will matter in some specific cases.

Hoojo
11-21-2007, 03:52 PM
I think the biggest thing is whether you're willing to risk a slower but stronger draw element for something that can die to creature removal. I'm not sure if this example is going to complicate things or not, but it'd be like the choice between Tidings and Future Sight when everyone runs 4 maindeck Erase. If you can keep that stuff from hitting, then the Future Sight will possibly pay off far more.

Good example, but I would also consider that your opponents 4 maindeck removal spells are spread between 4 Dark Confidant AND 4 Tarmogoyf, the odds are a little different. This is exactly the point I tried to make, though; Long term VS Short term gains.


I feel like I'd rather hitch my wagon to NW. This reminds me, btw, of a calculation I would do whenever I put Confidant in my decks. I'd ask if NW was better or even an option. If it was better, I'd often further ask if I even wanted the draw effect. It was a mental calculation I'd do that would save me from putting Confidants in decks that I didn't need them in. I suppose you essentially ask yourself with this deck whether you need all those extra draw effects.

I agree. I don't really see the NEED for Dark Confidant in UGb Threshold since the cantrip engine is so powerful. I see the main reason to run UGb is for Thoughtseize and/or Duress, not necessarily Dark Confidant. Changing your cantrips to use Dark Confidant almost pushes the deck to play a longer game, despite their ability to attack.

Nihil Credo
11-23-2007, 12:31 PM
Well, this is just a case of your removal spell (Bolt) being able to provide reach. So you can go "aggro" because you have a burn spell. If you are saying that Burn spells let you go aggressive in certain situations, then yes the deck is more aggressive. But going from 4 Bolts to 4 STP doesn't neccessarily make the overall strategy more aggressive. If you play UGR are you going to make all your decisions based on the fact that you have 4 Bolts left in your deck? In general this won't be the case, even though it will matter in some specific cases.

Well, yes, but I think we're getting bogged down by different definitions here. To me, how much aggressive a certain deck's strategy is can only be measured in the context of matches, not from an abstract decklist. For example, I'd say 9-land Stompy's strategy more aggressive than Sligh, because it goes on the aggressive in more games (whereas once in a while Sligh's best approach is to sit back and kill creatures). Likewise, UGR Thresh has a more aggressive strategy than UGW exclusively because it should more often play for the quick kill, e.g. FoWing early removal spells.

Lego
11-23-2007, 02:42 PM
It's also why he doesn't play the awesome Tombstalker instead of Sea Drake... because to him, a 4/3 for 3 with a heavy drawback it's better than a 5/5 for 2 just because it can be cast turn 3.

People keep talking about the "heavy drawback" of Sea Drake, but it just does not play out that way. Seriously, test it. I've never once had Sea Drake's drawback be an actual drawback in this deck. Honestly, Tombstalker's drawback would be much worse. He shuts off Nimble Mongoose and Tarmogoyf.

If you play Sea Drake on turn 3, then on turn 4 you've got two land, which is usually just fine for this deck (keep in mind that you don't play Counterspell.) If you play it on turn 4, then you've got 1 untapped at EOT turn 4 (hopefully to activate Vial for Counterbalance,) and 3 land on turn 5... 3 land is optimal, and you don't really ever need more.

Try playing Sea Drake. You'll find that you don't even think about the "drawback"... you just drop him when you need to, and never notice that you may have one less land for a turn (sometimes, like when you don't have a fourth land, you're not even ever DOWN a land.)

Nihil Credo
11-23-2007, 02:52 PM
I have no problem believing that. However, it's still a 4/3 for 3 compared to a Deed/EE/Smother-proof 5/5 that can go for as little as 2*. It would be much worse if it could not be played on turn 3.

* by the way, Tombstalker's only drawback is being difficult to cast in the early turns. He never shrinks Tarmogoyf, never turns off Ghastly Demise, and only seldom shrinks Mongoose

nitewolf9
11-23-2007, 03:14 PM
The main issues with tombstalker are the double black in the casting cost and the fact that it will sometimes "turn off" mongoose. Sea drake can not only be cast off any 3 lands in your deck but he is also blue and pitches to FOW in a pinch (may not be extremely significant, but can be relevant). If tombstalker could beat up a mystic enforcer then I would see the point in running him over drake, but for now I don't think it is better. The interaction with tarmogoyf is not an issue, they play fine together in the same deck.

Nihil Credo
11-23-2007, 03:22 PM
In case you haven't read my previous posts, I am not advocating putting Tombstalkers in Machinus' list. But I think it is unquestionable that if what you need is a big finisher to be cast in the mid-late game (which is not what Machinus needs), Tombstalker is superior to Sea Drake in almost every conceivable way.

TheCramp
11-24-2007, 04:25 PM
[QUOTE=nitewolf9;181035]The main issues with tombstalker are the double black in the casting cost and the fact that it will sometimes "turn off" mongoose. Sea drake can not only be cast off any 3 lands in your deck but he is also blue and pitches to FOW in a pinch (may not be extremely significant, but can be relevant). [QUOTE]


I think that the inability to pitch to FoW is more significant than the Mongoose interaction. With the amount of draw and filtering this deck has at its disposal, 3 Drakes (I don't play drakes but have been trying to devolop black thresh myself) will feel like having 5 main deck quite offten in the midgame. You offten just need the one finisher, and it leaves the question what to do with the remaining cards. the 2nd and (for true rough necks,) 3rd Tombstalkers are utterly dead. The drakes are mana, or in a pinch, that 2nd finisher. I found it to be quite annoying in testing to have a non-blue card in the finisher slot. I ended on serendib, and have been happy with it. The life loss has been an ishue however, and I now think I like sea drake better. Have to start saving those dollors. That said, the Serendib raw dogs on defence. The goyfs you can target get demised, and the geese you can't get blocked. Works out well.

Lego
11-24-2007, 05:07 PM
But I think it is unquestionable that if what you need is a big finisher to be cast in the mid-late game (which is not what Machinus needs), Tombstalker is superior to Sea Drake in almost every conceivable way.

If by "every conceivable way" you mean "in two ways," then yes, you're absolutely correct. Tombstalker is harder to cast than Sea Drake, he eats away at your game plan, he often will make Tarmogoyf smaller (or else not be cast,) he will almost always make Mongoose smaller, and he's absolutely useless outside of being a creature.

Sea Drake costs 3, often costs effectively 2, for 4 power and Flying. He pitches to Force (and it's actually surprising how relevant this is... a hand of Force, Tombstalker, Counterbalance, Thoughtseize, Land, Land, Tarmogoyf is hot, but nothing compared to Force, Sea Drake, Counterbalance, Thoughtseize, Land, Land, Tarmogoyf,) he counters extremely relevant spells with Counterbalance, and you can drop dub Sea Drake. You simply can't do that with Tombstalker.

You can afford to play 3 Sea Drake, always having a finisher as quickly as you need one, and having two pretty easily if you need to win faster, or draw out your opponent's answers. You can't play 3 Tombstalker. You also have something in the 3 slot now to counter those Crucible of Worlds, Vedalken Shackles, Pernicious Deeds, and everything else that's crazy and annoying at the 3 drop. It's pretty easy in this deck to find 1 of a 3-of on top, and keep it there. Tombstalker, at 8, is useless with Counterbalance.

Add this all up, and Sea Drake is quite obviously the unanimous choice. Tombstalker is better in exactly two ways: he's bolt-proof, and he's demise-proof. Because I'd rather he pitch to Force than be demise-proof, that leaves one reason to play him over Sea Drake, and I'm pretty sure all the other reasons listed are better than simply being bolt-proof.

Nihil Credo
11-24-2007, 06:15 PM
Let me restate that Tombstalker will absolutely never shrink Tarmogoyf, never meaningfully downpower Demise, and only seldom shrink Mongoose. I am pretty sure others played the card and had the same experiences.

The fact that Drake Balance-counters relevant things is comparable to the fact that Tombstalker gives Counterbalance the finger. Incidentally, that means Drake is better when you have Counterbalance and Tombstalker is better when your opponent has Counterbalance.

Pitching to Force is certainly a plus, but not a great one. Because Threshold has about a bajillion blue spells, it isn't all that common to want to pitch a game-winning threat instead of, say, a random cantrip, a late Daze, or an extra Counterbalance.

Yes, you can play 3x Sea Drake and run them out early to "win faster, or draw out your opponent's answers". I've said about a million times that control-style Thresh doesn't do those things, except against decks that are even more controllish, like for example Landstill. Speaking of which, Tombstalker does not just ignore Demise and Bolt: he also shrugs off Smother, Pernicious Deed, Engineered Explosives. All of which get played in control decks.

FoolofaTook
11-24-2007, 07:06 PM
The main issues with tombstalker are the double black in the casting cost and the fact that it will sometimes "turn off" mongoose. Sea drake can not only be cast off any 3 lands in your deck but he is also blue and pitches to FOW in a pinch (may not be extremely significant, but can be relevant). If tombstalker could beat up a mystic enforcer then I would see the point in running him over drake, but for now I don't think it is better. The interaction with tarmogoyf is not an issue, they play fine together in the same deck.

Tombstalker is a good anti-Goyf device when played that way. I can't imagine that he'll really hurt a Threshold deck when played as part of the theme though.

Lego
11-24-2007, 07:29 PM
I'm not sure why we're arguing about this in the Article thread... but it's probably because the Black Thresh thread sucks, so whatever.


Let me restate that Tombstalker will absolutely never shrink Tarmogoyf, never meaningfully downpower Demise, and only seldom shrink Mongoose. I am pretty sure others played the card and had the same experiences.

My testing shows otherwise. You almost never hit turn 3 or 4 without being able to play Sea Drake. You do it all the time with Tombstalker. And the number of times that you want to play Tombstalker and have a dozen or more cards in your graveyard is incredibly small. The reason he makes Tarmogoyf smaller is that you usually have to remove your entire graveyard to play him in any reasonable amount of time. It's not possible to play him (without your opponent's help) on turn 2, and the only way to do it on 3 is to remove your entire yard. I'd much rather bounce a couple lands. The way that you talk about Tombstalker leads me to believe that you're playing him Turn Infinity. That's not how this deck runs.


The fact that Drake Balance-counters relevant things is comparable to the fact that Tombstalker gives Counterbalance the finger. Incidentally, that means Drake is better when you have Counterbalance and Tombstalker is better when your opponent has Counterbalance.

This is so far from comparable that it makes me wonder if you've ever played Counterbalance before. First, you're going to have Counterbalance much more than your opponent, seeing as you play it maindeck, and they most often will not. Second, you'll face many more matchups where you'll want to counter a 3CC spell with Counterbalance than you will those where you need to resolve a creature through a Counterbalance (pretty much the same as the previous point.) Third, countering your opponents game-winning bombs is more important than dropping a creature that may or may not win the game.


Pitching to Force is certainly a plus, but not a great one. Because Threshold has about a bajillion blue spells, it isn't all that common to want to pitch a game-winning threat instead of, say, a random cantrip, a late Daze, or an extra Counterbalance.

It's a huge plus. You say it's not often that you'd want to pitch a threat that will win the game over a random cantrip, a Daze when the game has gone late, or a second or third Counterbalance. And you're right. But it's much better to be able to pitch a late-game threat on turn 1 instead of your ONLY Daze, or your ONLY Counterbalance, or your only way of finding another land. You're right... in the late game, you most often want to pitch something else. But in the early game, having Sea Drake in hand over Tombstalker is incredibly relevant (both because he can pitch to Force, and he can hit play on turn 3.) Granted, Threshold isn't usually running out of blue spells to pitch to Force, but this deck runs less blue than other Thresh builds, so every bit helps.


Yes, you can play 3x Sea Drake and run them out early to "win faster, or draw out your opponent's answers". I've said about a million times that control-style Thresh doesn't do those things, except against decks that are even more controllish, like for example Landstill.

This Thresh (the one we're talking about right now) does do that. You're playing 8 Fetches, 4 Force, 4 Thoughtseize, and often some number of Dark Confidant. You can't afford to wait until the late game, because a couple Bolts will end it. You need to win ASAP, and Sea Drake does that 100x better than Tombstalker.

Cait_Sith
11-24-2007, 07:51 PM
As a note: A big reason I don't like Tombstalker is the fact it picks up splash from graveyard hate. If you opponent uses Planar Void or Leyline of the Void turn 1, you are in SERIOUS trouble. You have a 5/5 blah stuck in your hand doing absolutely nothing.

Even an early Tormod's Crypt can ruin your day.

Since these cards will be brought in anyway to deal with your grave based creatures, it seems wiser to have a creature that can avoid this hate while being good on its own (Sea Drake is a good choice, but Serendib Efreet could work as well) then a big creature who becomes utterly worthless in the face of anti-Thresh hate.

Edit: Almost forgot, Sea Drake goes amazingly with Dark Confidant, especially compared to Tombstalker. Sea Drake wants consistent land drops for as long as possible, something Confidant can provide, while Tombstalker does NOT want to be flipped over. Having 4 FoW and 3 TS with 3 Dark Confidant can often be a recipe for disaster.

Nihil Credo
11-24-2007, 11:30 PM
@Cait_Sith: Even on MWS people have stopped bringing in graveyard hate against Threshold. Regarding the Confidant dissynergy, Tombstalker should never ever be a 3-of; as a 2-of or less it's fine, since you have cantrips and especially Top.


My testing shows otherwise. You almost never hit turn 3 or 4 without being able to play Sea Drake. You do it all the time with Tombstalker. And the number of times that you want to play Tombstalker and have a dozen or more cards in your graveyard is incredibly small. The reason he makes Tarmogoyf smaller is that you usually have to remove your entire graveyard to play him in any reasonable amount of time. It's not possible to play him (without your opponent's help) on turn 2, and the only way to do it on 3 is to remove your entire yard. I'd much rather bounce a couple lands. The way that you talk about Tombstalker leads me to believe that you're playing him Turn Infinity. That's not how this deck runs.

For the eleventy fucking billionth time, TOMBSTALKER IS GOOD IN CONTROL BUILDS THAT ONLY WANT TO PLAY HIM LATE GAME, NOT IN MACHINUS' BUILD!

Holy Mother Mary getting assraped by an HIV-positive stag, I can't believe I still have to repeat that. Of course it will shrink your Tarmogoyf if you play it turn 3-4.


This is so far from comparable that it makes me wonder if you've ever played Counterbalance before. First, you're going to have Counterbalance much more than your opponent, seeing as you play it maindeck, and they most often will not. Second, you'll face many more matchups where you'll want to counter a 3CC spell with Counterbalance than you will those where you need to resolve a creature through a Counterbalance (pretty much the same as the previous point.) Third, countering your opponents game-winning bombs is more important than dropping a creature that may or may not win the game.My bad, I was talking strictly about the blue aggro-control mirror match. You are right that Sea Drake can counter a random Crucible of Worlds or Sword of Fire/Ice, or whatever.


It's a huge plus. You say it's not often that you'd want to pitch a threat that will win the game over a random cantrip, a Daze when the game has gone late, or a second or third Counterbalance. And you're right. But it's much better to be able to pitch a late-game threat on turn 1 instead of your ONLY Daze, or your ONLY Counterbalance, or your only way of finding another land.As I said, how huge a plus it is depends on how often that scenario comes up - which I don't think is a lot.


This Thresh (the one we're talking about right now) does do that. You're playing 8 Fetches, 4 Force, 4 Thoughtseize, and often some number of Dark Confidant. You can't afford to wait until the late game, because a couple Bolts will end it. You need to win ASAP, and Sea Drake does that 100x better than Tombstalker.See the HUGE FUCKING TEXT above. Jesus, read what I write and don't waste anyone's time arguing over nonexistent points.

Let me remind you how this discussion started: I wrote "Machinus' builds favours Sea Drake over Tombstalker, because it works better there", then you jumped over with "OMG Sea Drake is sooo much the better card anywhere" and I responded. So please don't bring decklist context into the debate.

Lego
11-25-2007, 01:53 AM
Let me remind you how this discussion started: I wrote "Machinus' builds favours Sea Drake over Tombstalker, because it works better there", then you jumped over with "OMG Sea Drake is sooo much the better card anywhere" and I responded. So please don't bring decklist context into the debate.

Hold on... first you say that your entire point was that Tombstalker is good in certain builds of Thresh, and now you're telling me that deck context should have nothing to do with the debate? So he's not better in a vacuum, but you'd like to debate why he's better in a vacuum?

I'll break it down for you. What you're saying is that Tombstalker is good in certain Thresh builds and in certain situations within those builds of Thresh. What I'm doing is assuming we all understand the fact that those builds of Thresh are terrible, and that you don't want to get yourself into those situations, and then arguing why Sea Drake is better.

In case you don't understand, Sea Drake is better because the deck shouldn't be trying to put itself in situations where Tombstalker is better. That's completely counter to the deck's plan. What I should have said is that Sea Drake is better in good Threshold decks.

Nihil Credo
11-25-2007, 09:42 AM
Hold on... first you say that your entire point was that Tombstalker is good in certain builds of Thresh, and now you're telling me that deck context should have nothing to do with the debate? So he's not better in a vacuum, but you'd like to debate why he's better in a vacuum?

No. You are claiming that Sea Drake is always better, whereas I claim that Tombstalker is better in control builds and Drake is better in aggro or disruption builds. Therefore, when you say stuff like "Sea Drake is better when you need to play a turn 3 flier", it is completely irrelevant because I never claimed otherwise.


What I'm doing is assuming we all understand the fact that those builds of Thresh are terrible

I disagree with that assumption. For example, when facing another aggro-control build, I believe it is better to have access to CA bombs like Confidant and resilient threats like Tombstalker rather than quick, fast attacks like Thoughtseize and Sea Drake.

Lego
11-25-2007, 03:49 PM
No. You are claiming that Sea Drake is always better, whereas I claim that Tombstalker is better in control builds and Drake is better in aggro or disruption builds.

You're right. I'm claiming that, in the context of an actual decklist, Sea Drake is always better. There will obviously be some in-game situations where Tombstalker will be the card you'd rather have in your hand. But there will never be a fully optimized decklist that wants Tombstalker over Sea Drake.


I disagree with that assumption. For example, when facing another aggro-control build, I believe it is better to have access to CA bombs like Confidant and resilient threats like Tombstalker rather than quick, fast attacks like Thoughtseize and Sea Drake.

I agree that Confidant is a bomb in the mirror match. Which is why I play him. Along with Thoughtseize and Sea Drake. You make that deck strictly worse by adding Tombstalker to it.

What I'm saying is that, in the context of an actual Threshold deck, there's no conceivable list in which I would want to play Tombstalker, except for lists that are terrible. And what I'd want to do there is fix the list, at which point it would no longer want Tombstalker. Capisce?

hi-val
11-25-2007, 05:39 PM
As long as we're adding gas to the fire, what about Serendib Efreet over Sea Drake? It eats Mongeese but takes longer to swing in and kill. Probably best considered as a budget option for those who can't find and consume Sea Drakes.

FoolofaTook
11-25-2007, 09:33 PM
As long as we're adding gas to the fire, what about Serendib Efreet over Sea Drake? It eats Mongeese but takes longer to swing in and kill. Probably best considered as a budget option for those who can't find and consume Sea Drakes.

Serendib Efreet was probably hurt more by the printing of Tarmogoyf than any other creature usually played as a damage dealer in Legacy. It's slower to come out than you like for an early game beater and by turn 4 or 5 it no longer trades off against Goyf or Werebear or Quirion Dryad. Later on it is dominated by Jotun Grunt and Tombstalker. Basically it lost it's early window of opportunity to Goyf and then the 3 damage to the opponent for 1 damage to self is a serious hindrance in the mid game in a damage race.

Lego
11-26-2007, 12:06 AM
As long as we're adding gas to the fire, what about Serendib Efreet over Sea Drake? It eats Mongeese but takes longer to swing in and kill. Probably best considered as a budget option for those who can't find and consume Sea Drakes.

There are 16 reasons not to play Serendib: 4 Polluted Delta, 4 Flooded Strand, 4 Force of Will, 4 Thoughtseize. (add Dark Confidant to this list if you play him)

Happy Gilmore
11-26-2007, 12:33 AM
I'm a really big fan of Terravore as well for the reasons Chris mentioned. Fetchlands are so common in this format. The double green should be fine as long as your using him as a finisher.

Citrus-God
11-26-2007, 10:52 AM
There are 16 reasons not to play Serendib: 4 Polluted Delta, 4 Flooded Strand, 4 Force of Will, 4 Thoughtseize. (add Dark Confidant to this list if you play him)

4 turn clock > 7 turn clock... fuck Efreet.

Volt
11-26-2007, 11:23 AM
4 turn clock > 7 turn clock... fuck Efreet.

More like 5 turn clock > 6 turn clock, but whatever.

Nihil Credo
11-26-2007, 02:54 PM
What I'm saying is that, in the context of an actual Threshold deck, there's no conceivable list in which I would want to play Tombstalker, except for lists that are terrible. And what I'd want to do there is fix the list, at which point it would no longer want Tombstalker. Capisce?
Capisco. We'll agree to disagree on the existence of such lists.

Citrus-God
11-26-2007, 07:47 PM
More like 5 turn clock > 6 turn clock, but whatever.

My bad...

Well... Sea Drake is just a decent stalemate breaker, but thats about it. Since Wasteland is nearly non-existent, shouldn't 4c be looked into right now?

Nihil Credo
11-26-2007, 09:17 PM
Since Wasteland is nearly non-existent, shouldn't 4c be looked into right now?
I tried that one, and abandoned it quickly; basically, Swords to Plowshares and Mystic Enforcer are not enough of an improvement over Ghastly Demise and Tombstalker to compensate the weakening of the mana base. It is very annoying to have an otherwise great hand with two lands and spells in four different colours; you need to cantrip into either a fetchland or the appropriate dual soon, and a single Stifle/Wasteland/Sinkhole can steal an entire game away from you. White doesn't offer much over Black in the way of sideboarding either, since the colour of death already has access to plenty of extra removal, disruption, and anti-Goblins tools.

If your metagame is full of black creatures, I'd play the Red splash instead.