@gambit:
Here is the list I'm currently testing:
Land (23):
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors
4 Flagstones of Trokair
1 Mishra's Factory
3 Wasteland
7 Plains
--
4 Mox Diamond
4 Magus of the Tabernacle
3 Exalted Angel
2 Armageddon
2 Ravages of War
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Crucible of Worlds
2 Smokestack
4 Trinisphere
3 Serum Powder
2 Oblivion Ring
3 Ghostly Prison
SB:
3 Defense Grid
3 Suppression Field
2 Sphere of Law
2 Tormod's Crypt
1 Ghostly Prison
4 Meta Slots
Posts like this really get to me since it does nothing for the discussion. If you think my math is flawed, by all means enlighten me with a correction. And I never once said that people couldn't test Serum Powder in 'Geddon Stax. All I said was that it doesn't make the cut for me and I tried to show why (If you read the whole thread and the ones that preceded this, you'll see that I've been playing this deck and contributing to the thread for a good while as well - and I've tested my share of winners and losers in this deck). Maybe I can do a better job of explaining why I don't like Serum Powder for this deck...Originally Posted by Syco_Tr0pic
I eliminated the discussion of mulligans from my last post when I said it was a 'basic' overview of the math, so you're right on that account. Taking mulligans into consideration becomes a much, much more difficult problem to solve since the probabilities change with every 'variation' (i.e. the calculated probabilities depend on which cards get removed).
But to demonstrate where the math would tend, here's another 'thought' experiment...
What does an 'unplayable' hand with Stax look like...
*Aside - I don't want to derail the current discussion with exactly what is and isn't playable, so I'm going to make some generalizations. If you have another hand you would like to look at specifically - bring it up for discussion. I find it extremely difficult in these mathematical discussions when you begin looking at specific cards because you can calculate the specific probabilities of such a hand and the probabilities for a specific 7 card hand are LOW. I am going to try and keep the discussion to trends, etc. for this reason - a 0.25% change in something that occurs 1.3% of the time is probably not worth noting since it will only show up in the most rigorous testing and not at all in most tournament settings. END*
Here's an example of a slow opener - Land Land Land Mox Crucible Land Crucible. There may be situations where this is playable, but it would require more information, so we'll just assume for the sake of discussion that it's not one of those times.
Now, let's replace a Land with Serum Powder so we have something like Plains, Factory, Plains, Mox Diamond, Crucible, Crucible, Serum Powder. That's a pretty slow opener - turn 2 Crucible with nothing to get back but a Plains/Factory is very weak in a format where you could be facing turn 2 'Goyf or Combo-I-Win. So, I remove this hand and draw a new seven. *Note - I could just take a mulligan and keep the Crucibles, Diamond, and Lands in my deck, but then why discuss SP to begin with.*
Now, I've changed all my probablilities... I'm down to 1-2 Crucibles depending on build, so (in general) my chances of a Smokestack lock or Wastelock are lessened (probability to achieve a locked board - DOWN). I'm down to 3 Diamonds (35% chance of having 1 in the new hand down from 40%) so my ability to get off to an explosive start is hampered (probability for turn 1 Trinisphere/Prison/Morph - DOWN). And I'm down 3 lands (which unless you play 26 is going to hurt your land numbers) which isn't going to help me any playing a mana-hungry deck (probability for mana problems - UP).
You can see the trends... all of the probabilities of achieving the deck's goals are lessened and the chances of running into 'other' problems has gone up. Now, again, that's for a specific situation relying on specific cards, but change the cards and look at the example again - removing 7 cards from a 60 card deck hurts the probability a 4-of goes from 4/60~6.5% while 3/53~5.5%, remove 2 and you are at 2/53~3.5%.
*Aside - After thinking about this more, I don't think this is a small point. Anything you remove, you hurt your chances for finding another. Anything you didn't remove, you increase those odds. In Stax, because of the number of mini-combos and multi-card synergies, this is NOT a small effect. END*
You'll find that unless you are talking about situations that start with 0-2 lands or 5+ lands (i.e. hands you would mulligan anyways), you are almost always 'hurting' yourself with a deck like Stax where you actually are trying to draw the cards in your deck.
This is not the case with an all-in combo like Dredge in Vintage (or Belcher in Legacy/Vintage) where you are aggressively looking for your 'engine'/combo to be in your opening hand instead of in your library. Those decklists rely on individual redundancies (i.e. one dredge is about as valuable as the next) and unique synergy (i.e. you plan to 'see' nearly all your cards) to be able to remove 7 with little-to-no consequence. On the other hand, there are hands with Ichorid that you would probably choose to take a conventional mulligan instead of using Powder's ability. An example might be a hand of Bridge, Zealot, Ichorid, Serum Powder, Bridge, Therapy, Leyline. You definitely need to mulligan, but your not going to remove your win for the chance (i.e. you want your deck to still achieve its goal).
The bottom line is... Serum Powder, in Stax, dilutes the deck and does not help the deck achieve its goals. It sounds like a good theory (being able to draw seven new cards), but the math (and the internal synergy of the deck) does not support it. Improving familiarity with the deck, its match-ups, and the meta you are playing it in will all lead to more wins than Serum Powder.
Otherwise, maybe, if you want to try and play Stax like an all-in combo (where you basically win or lose based on the starting 7), Serum Powder would work. And, honestly, if you wish to test Serum Powder further for yourself, then by all means - go for it. The alternative isn't 'immobility' or stagnation but rather to look for and test things that advance and improve the deck and it's poor match-ups.
Fred Bear...
Like all control decks, Stax struggles in the early game. However, by using cards that can potentially dilute mid-late game effectiveness, you're sacrificing the very consistency and redundancy that Stax NEEDS on turn 4-8. Personally, I do not see the need for tutors/draw/manipulation in order to MAYBE help my turn 1-3 plays, especially at the expense of my turn 4-8 plays (the turns I should be locking up the board).
Consistency, redundancy, and virtual card advantage are the strengths of Stax.
One factor that makes White Stax a Tier 1-2 deck:
On the bottom of Stax's multi-synergistic framework there is one factor that gives the deck the power to be tough enough to keep up with the top decks: In a nutshell that's turn 1 Chalice@ or Trinisphere (followed by mana denial)
I'm pretty sure nobody expects me to do the math involed to state that chances for such turn 1s get much better with serum powder.
I also can't stress enough how much you benefit from SP Gs2/3: You find your SB_hate more than twice as frequently in your starting hand (when accounting for SB 3-ofs and multiple mulls if need be). For SP serves as copies 3-5/4-6/5-7 for each of your Sb cards.
Plus you virtually save SB slots for more versatility. Meaning you can cut your 4ofs (i.e. Suppression Field, Defense Grid) down to 3 copies. This is especially golden for big tournaments - you can simply battle a larger amount of archetypes postboard.
Thoughts?
Powder seems really bizarre on paper, but I think it's worth pointing out how very relevant the mana production from it could be.
As I pointed out earlier, it is pretty smooth at times to be able to play Mox, City -> something, and then SP (instead of another land that kills City).
It also let's you recover from your Geddons much quicker, obviously.
@fred bear:
Yeah, I think I regard Stax as more of an "all-in combo based on your starting 7" compared to 90% of the field. For me this is especially true because we have no cantrips that help us improve our hand by finding the most effective cards throughout the game. Hell I'd play Sensei's Top over SP any day if it cost 2 even in the face of so few shuffle effects^^.Otherwise, maybe, if you want to try and play Stax like an all-in combo (where you basically win or lose based on the starting 7), Serum Powder would work.
--
Finding specific SP starting hand situations that enlighten us whether it's top or flop doesn't seem logical to me - the variety of hands plus the variety of SP-mulled hands that you may get is simply to complex. So no offence, but please try to come up with 'hard facts' if you really want to contribute to the discussion.
---
On another note, don't forget that when adding 3 SP it is quite viable to go down to 23 lands (cutting 1-2), due to more mana producers overall and potential fewer mana screws due to "mull deluxe". SP uses merely 1-2 slots.
--
I disagree Tacosnape. Serum powder sounds right. This is sort of a "combo" deck, that focuss on pieces to interact and deny your opponent the ability to truly "play" his or her gameplan. Fixing your opening 7 in a deck that has 0 card draw and it's card advantage is really more board advantage and control than anything else. Serum might be clunky in the middle of a game or what not, but seriously in theory it sounds fine. Post sb it makes sense that you see more of your sb cards, ect. The only problem is I see it being sided out because its really not that usefull in the game, but who knows.
Does anyone play manaless ichorid in vintage? If so, whats it like running 3 serum powders vs 4 as im pretty sure youve tested it.
I see how horizon canopy is working for people.
I know this sounds retarded, absolutely stupid, but do you think the 6 drop enchantment that makes your opponent draw 7 whenever they cast a spell worth it in A stax build? Maybe a mono blue non farie stompy build? Im just asking because I dont know.
Klaus,
I'm sorry that I disagree with your idea, but that's why I'm trying to discuss it with examples and probability theory. I provided specific examples (and acknowledged the shortcomings of the assumptions) to illustrate general points about the failure of Serum Powder to do what is claimed. It's an opinion, though, and you are free to disagree with me and provide evidence to the contrary. But I will continue to offer counter-points where I feel necessary, so as to save time for people testing the deck to actually improve it.
Case in point...
I would agree that turn 1 Chalice set at 1 and turn 1 Trinisphere are both very effective plays. I would argue that turn 1 Chalice at 1 is probably the best play this deck can make (with the generally accepted list). But let's really evaluate these two plays in depth...
Turn 1 Chalice at 1 can be played by either a 2-mana land + Chalice (22-24%) or by any two land + Mox Diamond + Chalice (11%) which means that we should be getting Chalice at 1 on turn 1 about 33% of the time. Turn 1 Trinisphere is more difficult since it requires Trinisphere + Mox Diamond + 2-mana Land + another land. This event will occur roughly 7-8% of the time.
To me, this illustrates what makes this a solid deck choice and at least keeps most of the match-ups at least in the even category - ~40% of the time, you will have either Chalice @1 or Trinisphere on turn 1.
But these openings are what you are looking to improve with Serum Powder (if I understand your point correctly). You want a better than 40% chance of either Chalice @1 or Trinisphere on turn 1.
Serum Powder will do that - provided that (A) Serum Powder is in your hand; (B) Neither Chalice or Trinisphere or Mox Diamond is in your opening hand; (C) You are playing 8 2-mana lands; and (D) there are no more than 2 lands in your opening hand. How did I arrive at that?
(A) Without Serum Powder, it's a moot point. In your 3-of suggested build, this will occur 32% of the time. This is a basic premise of the idea.
(B) If Chalice, Trinisphere, or Mox Diamond is in a hand you RFG with Powder, the odds of drawing another copy is actually reduced - not improved - in the new hand. Odds of drawing a 4-of from a 60-card deck in the opening 7 - 40%. Odds of drawing a 3-of from a 53-card deck in the opening 7 - 35%. This is where the probability tree does get confusing since the actual percentages will depend on exactly what you do remove, but, IN GENERAL, if you remove one of these three cards, your chances for a broken opener go down - not up.
(C) If you play 8 2-mana lands and remove 1, you probably won't notice anything (~65%). If you play 7 2-mana lands and remove 1, your odds are decreased by ~1%. In my testing, I have been most comfortable with 7 2-mana lands (eliminating 1 City of Traitors). Neither of these plays is 'broken' enough to warrant the number of times you will get a double City with no Crucible in my opinion. Overall this is a minor point, though.
(D) In your suggested build, you recommend 23 lands in a 60-card deck (38.3%). To maintain that percentage, you need 20.3 lands in a 53-card deck. This is again a small percentage, but if you remove 3 lands with Powder the trend is down - not up - which is not what we want.
So now, let's evaluate how often this happens... We need a hand of Powder + 6 cards (no Diamond, no 3-Sphere, no Chalice)... ~6% of the time. Awesome! That's about 1 time in 6 3-game matches or once a tournament. But there's no guarantee that we will get that broken opener after this, we are just 'improving' the odds. Let's assume we removed 4 random cards, 2 1-mana lands, and Powder... The numbers DO improve to ~52%. Thats pretty awesome actually. But wait... It's a combination so we take 52% * the 6% occurance and we improve our chances by ~3% (this means that you will realize the improvement about every other tournament you play).
Normally, I would applaud an improvement of 3%, though - that's awesome. But, as Arsenal pointed out, you could be sacrificing your mid-game. And to evaluate that - you HAVE to look at what those 4 random cards were which make it an extremely difficult exercise and would require testing - but since you are only going to see it 6 times in 100 tests - count me out - your testing results will be completely random. Honestly, if every deck in Legacy scooped to turn 1 Trinisphere or turn 1 Chalice at 1, I'd say this was very worthwhile, but they don't (again, if they did - I would understand playing prison as an all-in combo which I disagree with anyhow) and I can't count the number of times I have lost to Landstill/Survival/Deadguy/etc. with a turn 1 Trinisphere, but no juice afterwards or suffered at the hand of an unchecked 'Goyf after a Turn 1 Chalice for 1. A 3% chance at drawing a combo that doesn't win the game and playing a card that potentially hurts my mid-to-long game where the deck has game just seems like a counterintuitive idea.
So 'no offense', but these are hard facts. But that's just my thoughts on the subject based on the underlying probabilities and my experience playing the deck. I would rather run cards that further the decks goals and improve the deck against the field (not itself).
I would also never side in Serum Powder, so I can't really see the point in keeping it in post board. Wouldn't you rather run actually useful cards vs your opponent?
Fred Bear...
Control decks, since the beginning of Magic, have had tough times in the early game. That's a sacrifice you make as a control player; shaky early game in order to have a dominating, controlling mid-late game. If you guys can't deal with an early game that is suspect sometimes, then I suggest you find a different archetype to play. I wouldn't do something as drastic as marginally increase my early game effectiveness at the expense of my mid-late game; the time when Stax should be rolling. But to each his own I guess...
Hello, I've been lurking your discussion about Serum Powder, and I'm unable to wrap my mind around it.
The question for me lies whether I want the Serum Powder itself in my opening hand; and I'm afraid that sometimes I'd have to throw away 7 cards I don't really want to throw away.
Improving opening hand, or creating any form of stability is a virtue though; but what could we use instead of Serum Powder? Wouldn't Scroll Rack be an option to play, perhaps?
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
I've actually played Scroll Rack before. It is amazing in the late game as this deck never drops lands, and you can rack large hands. It is very very good with flagstones and plains, since you have no way of shuffling them back into your deck, and flagstones can get rid of crap. The problem with Scroll Rack is that it doesn't generally do enough until the deck has already established some kind of position on the board. You don't really want to play it early, and the deck doesn't have enough cards in the early game to really take advantage of it.
It's a very good idea, and it's on a short list of development options, but I haven't found that it makes the deck more disruptive. If your hand is bad enough that you want to start racking early, you probably should just get a new hand.
Here is my list that i currently play:
1x The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
3x City of Traitors
4x Wasteland
4x Ancient Tomb
4x Flagstones of Trokair
8x Plains
4x Mox Diamond
4x Smokestack
4x Chalice of the Void
4x Crucible of Worlds
4x Trinisphere
1x Moat
2x Oblivion Ring
2x Exalted Angel
3x Magus of the Tabernacle
4x Armageddon
4x Ghostly Prison
Sideboard
3x Aura of Silence
4x Supression Field
4x Tormod's Crypt
4x Defense Grid
I know some people are running Mishra's Factories and more Angels/Magus, but Moat and The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale have been testing very good against a lot of different decks. Any suggestions on main deck and sideboard choices?
Why do you opt for 4x smokestack? If you draw 1, the rest are dead cards?
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
So you drew a Smokestack. Congratulations. Now resolve it. You resolved it? Awesome. Now protect it from Krosan Grip/Seal of Primordium/Shattering Spree/etc. Get the point?
Not only does 4x Smokestack increase your chances of seeing one when you need it, but it allows you to be more aggressive with soot counters (2-3 soot counters for a couple turns). There is no downside of playing 4x Smokestack; it's the basis of the deck. Much like Landstill plays 4x Standstill.
Smokestack #2 is still really good. Two stacks out means you can go from 1 to 3 soot counters in one turn, or 2 to 4. The first stack is good but it might not clean up all the way.
Yup, point taken. The reason I asked is; since I'm a new stax-player myself, I always saw stax decks as having a semi-lock before smokestack; and smokestack being the final killer and closing the lock. Now I see that the semi-lock is still too vulnerable, and more stax is a good thing to have
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
So I goldfished a bunch of hands with Serum Powder; and basically I always wished it was another lock piece etc. Yes a few times it got me a free mulligan; but it made me throw away 2 crucibles, an Angel, 2 chalices etc. Basically making my deck 7 less gassy cards and very land heavy, as most mulligans were due to too few land. They are really not a good draw either, I don't want to spend 3 mana to play one unless I already have board control, and as a topdeck when you need a lock piece they ruin lives. I only ran three, by just turning a few cards backwards in their sleeves, whenever I had one I would look what the card would usually be and say "shit, I would way rather have that." So, in theory SP seems like it could be good, and again this was just goldfishing, but I won't be playing them anytime soon.
Another Point; I believe this deck should be running 5 armegeddons. It's a card that is good in multiples and I'm always happy to draw. Plus usually a resolved one results in victory.
EDIT: Has anyone tried to get a Ravages of War lately? There isn't a single place on-line with any in stock, not even da 'Bay. Let me know if you have a source.
Thanks to Idraleo who lent me the deck (minus the Ravages of War and Tabernacle), I brought White Stax to a Dragons League tourney this Sunday. I did not make Top 8, although it was quite close. I thought I would put a report here to revive this thread.
First of all, the list:
// Lands
4 [EX] City of Traitors
2 [4E] Mishra's Factory
4 [TE] Ancient Tomb
4 [TSP] Flagstones of Trokair
8 [UNH] Plains
3 [TE] Wasteland
1 [NE] Kor Haven
// Creatures
3 [PLC] Magus of the Tabernacle
4 [JGC] Exalted Angel
// Spells
4 [SH] Mox Diamond
4 [MR] Chalice of the Void
4 [CHK] Ghostly Prison
4 [DS] Trinisphere
4 [FD] Crucible of Worlds
3 [US] Smokestack
4 [P2] Armageddon
// Sideboard
SB: 4 [LRW] Oblivion Ring
SB: 3 [9E] Defense Grid
SB: 3 [CS] Jötun Grunt
SB: 2 [10E] Windborn Muse
SB: 3 [RAV] Suppression Field
I was confident in the maindeck, much less in the sideboard, particularly the Jotun Grunts. I saw a few Ichorids decks around and no Loam archetypes, so I considered switching the balance in favour of Windborn Muse, but decided not to change my SB on the basis of just a couple of scouted decks.
Round 1: Giuseppe Stancanelli playing White Stax
1: Yep - the two White Stax players in the tournament get paired together.
As he shuffles his cards, he slips and reveals a City of Traitors. How interesting: so it's either White Stax, or Dragon/Faerie Stompy; probably the former, since Stompy decks are vastly underplayed in Italy. Conveniently enough, my opener has Crucible, an Angel, and enough lands to play both, while his appears to contain a few more useless lock pieces (he starts on the play with a Chalice@1). I get a fairly quick win from that.
I side out Chalices, Trinispheres, and a Prison for the playset of Rings and all SB creatures (3 Grunt, 2 Muse)
2: This game shows what the Stax mirror usually is: 90% of the game revolves around Crucible superiority. It's a back and forth between the both of us, with Oblivion Rings flying around to change the balance each time (somewhat amusingly, my opponent's surname can be read as 'Ring-tirer'). Flagstones of Trokair get continously sacked to Smokestacks and pull out all Plains from both our decks. Armageddon acts as spot removal, making permanents die to Smokestack or even Magus. Our hand size basically never goes under 7 for the whole mid-late game as we discard like crazy.
In the end, we're both one hit away from death and he pulls out a tough win by leaving me one mana away from stopping an attacking Mishra's Factory. Good game.
3: Shit, we have to draw. This sucks, we're both going to end up in the Landstill-filled draw bracket... what? Two minutes left in the round? Oh well, I guess I'll just kill you on turn 5 with double Angel and both Factories then.
1-0
Round 2: Alain Seissi playing BG Control
Lose the die roll again. Our table is picked at random for a playset of foil Faerie Conclaves for the winner. We split it since neither of us cares, although now that I think of it we might as well have left the playset whole.
1: Pernicious Deed. Krosan Grip (nice MD pick). Eternal Witness for Grip. Revive for Pernicious Deed. I mentally prepare for a horrendous humiliation, as I hardcast an Exalted Angel headed for certain death, and his answer is... Screams from Within. Followed by a... is that a Martyr of Spores?
Uhm.
Maybe this won't be that tough after all. Six hits from a 3/4 Angel do the job.
I bring in the Suppression Fields; I forgot what I sided out.
2: Like in game 1, he destroys every non-land permanent I play, and he also has a Putrefy for my Magus. He keeps attacking me with an Eternal Witness, and plink-plink-plink I'm down to 2 life as he clinches a hand probably full of answers, then I topdeck...
... Kor Haven. Super Secret Tech saves the day!
I stall for a boatload of turns here while I keep drawing lands and Crucible, while he is stuck on two Forests and a Swamp thanks to my Wastelands. Eventually an Angel shows up, gets hardcast, and goes unanswered. Whew.
This opponent was very nice and methodical, but I still wonder what the hell was up with his deck. It sure wasn't a money problem - his Bayous were black bordered, his Witnesses foil, and his Pernicious Deeds were fucking Judge Promos.
2-0
Round 3: Liviano Buso playing UW Landstill
Liviano is a pretty friendly guy. I lose the die roll again.
1: We exchange threats and counters during the early turns, but he manages to drop a Crucible first with both fetches and (uh-oh) Wastelands in the yard. I have no Crucible, so my chances look grim. I keep playing for a while hoping to eventually force through the Smokestack-Armageddon combo, but alas, his counterwall does not fail.
I bring in Fields, Grids, and a Grunt in place of the Magi and the Prisons.
I begin to miss the fifth Armageddon.
2: Turn 1 Defense Grid resolves, and I execute my game plan with ease. He scoops fairly soon.
3: Like in game 1, he counters a few of my early threats and drops Crucible with fetchlands to ensure consistent land drops (but no Wasteland). Unlike in game 1, with the help of a Defense Grid I manage to resolve first a Smokestack (well, actually he allows this since he's got Crucible recursion and I don't) and then an Armageddon, after baiting with some other spell (another Armageddon, I think). Smokestack eats his Crucible, then I use some sandbagged lands to keep him under hardlock.
Now he quite literally can't win; unfortunately, he's got a Plains and a Swords to Plowshares for my first Angel, and by the time I find another creature (a Grunt, who had more than enough food to finish him) the extra turns have begun and I am unable to finish him.
Had I scooped G1 as soon as it was clear he had enough countermagic to back up his clock, I would have won this one. Damnit.
At least, we get to talk about Landstill between rounds. He laments some of the common issues with straight U/W builds, and I give him Marius Hausmann's UWb list to try out.
2-0-1
Round 4: Stefano Dusso playing UB Fish/Breakfast/Stiflenought
He knows what I'm playing, I don't. Good for him, though, since as it turns out this is a damn good matchup for me.
Yet another die roll loss. Because it's not like I'm piloting a deck where it matters, of course.
1: After an opening Thoughtseize he drops a Confidant, but other than that his draws are pretty crappy: he gets his Shuko and a pair of crappy Narcomoebas. Meanwhile Chalice@1 proves savage against his draws, and double Ghostly Prison denies him the attack step; I eventually lock him out.
I'm not really sure how to side against this - I bring in the Fields, obviously, replacing the Magi, and turn two Ghostly Prisons into Windborn Muses, probably thinking that he's short on removal and lacks a real clock (I didn't know about the StifleNought combo, although I should have suspected it).
2: He keeps a risky hand of Underground Sea, Ponder, 2x Brainstorm, Daze, Needle (for Wasteland), Thoughtseize (which eats my Suppression Field). Unfortunately his cantripping fails to find any land and I get about 6-7 turns to do whatever I want to him.
3-0-1. According to the HJ, I now only need another win to make Top 8.
Round 5: Sandro Campigotto playing Turbo Enchantress
He has a huge-ass gilded d20 die to roll: nice penis, man. Oh, and obviously I lose the die roll.
1: I know he's playing Enchantress, so I happily keep a hand with little action but an Angel and an Armageddon. Unfortunately I did not quite know what kind of Enchantress he was playing. The turn before I can Armageddon, he starts to chain Gaea's Touches, Early Harvests, and cheap enchantments into a Hunting Pack for lethal damage followed by a Concordant Crossroads. Aww, shit.
For the sideboard, the Smokestacks are an easy cut, replaced by Oblivion Rings, and I drop a Prison to complete the playset. But this still looks grim. Again I wish for Ravages of War.
2: I may play this deck my whole life and never get such an ungodly start. Turn 1 Tomb, Chalice@1. Turn two Land, Mox, Chalice@2. Turn 3 Crucible, replay City of Traitors, morphed Angel. Turn 4 Armageddon. Ouch.
After this huge beating, Sandro gets a bit nervous and hints he might be willing to consider a draw. And here is my biggest screwup of the whole tournament, more stupid even than the round 3 draw.
I should have accepted right the fuck away - I should have torn off his hand and make him sign the slip in his blood. He has a fast clock, and most of my disruption barely affects him, with all his basic lands and mana acceleration. Chalices are about as good as it gets against him, and he's packing Seals of Primordium for those (a full playset, I discovered) along with possibly Oblivion Rings (none, it turns out). I can put up a fight against Enchantress, but this is something like a 5-95 matchup. Offering the draw was his massive screwup.
But no, I was inebriated by the savageness of Game 2, which was so insane it had drawn several spectators. I somehow persuade myself that I will get a strike of luck twice in a row. I start shuffling for game 3.
Which is a near-exact replica of Game 1. GG.
3-1-1
Okay, now let's get calm: I just need to win this round. It's not like I have to win six in a row: it's just one. I have a fair shot at it. Right?
Round 6: Massimo Scalchi playing 4C Landstill with Tarmogoyf
...fuck this world and every fucker that's ever fucked in it.
The sixth lost die roll in a row. But at this point, I'm above such petty matters.
1: I can't remember much about this one, but I believe I had an OK hand that was just overclassed by double Deed and a few key counterspells. I think a turn 1 Trinisphere got Forced. According to my notes, it's death by Mishra's Factory.
I bring in the Fields, Grids, and three Rings, siding out Magi, Prisons, a Trinisphere, and I think an Angel.
2: This one is a completely unfair beating. I resolve turn 1 Grid, and follow it straight up with Wastelock. He concedes as soon as an Angel shows up with Chalice@1 in play.
3: My first hand has no lands; my second one is (I remember this one starkly) City of Traitors, Mox Diamond, Chalice of the Void, Crucible of Worlds, Armageddon, Exalted Angel.
I ponder this one for a while. This is a bad matchup; in addition to Deeds he has Grips - I saw him discard one during G2 - and Goyfs are decidedly better than Stifle or Spell Snare against my deck. A five-card hand has pretty slim odds of making it.
On the other side, an extra land would make this hand very good; a Defense Grid instead of Chalice is about all I could have hoped for. Since I'm on the draw, I have two turns to find it, and even if I get it on the third turn I may not be in too much trouble. I have 25 lands left in my 43 cards; I decide to go with these odds.
Tropical Island, go.
City of Traitors, Chalice. Brainstorm in response. Chalice resolves.
Waste your City of Traitors, go.
Draw: not a land.
Draw: not a land.
3-2-1. Good tournament.
Sixteenth place, out of 47 players. I suppose that's not entirely awful for my first ever Constructed tournament in real life.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
I loled
Im guessing that you didnt try windborn muse in place of exalted angel. When i was testing the deck I liked it because its just like magus (if not a little more killable): its a beater and a lock piece. All of the time i would get a muse and a prison and it always spells game over when you prevent them from casting a answer to it.
Also lots of lists use oblivion ring, and it seems like it could have helped you out if you had it. Im not sure what could be cutted for it though.
Call me Ishmael
Grats on the solid finish Nihil. Nice to see Stax doing ok even against scary decks/cards.
Notice how I replaced "Muse" with Angel because frankly Exalted Angel serves exactly the same purpose as Muse, stopping your opponent's beaters from killing you. However contrary to Muse the Angel has a power of 4 so if she beats she beats hard.
I also talked about Angel as a lock piece here
If you add to this the fact that Angel can be morphed already at 3 colorless mana whereas Muse always needs 4 mana (thereby slightly but not unnoticeably increasing your manacurve) it seems quite clear to me that Angel is the stronger choice in most metagames.1. Exalted Angel
I was always a fan of Exalted Angel for its ability to finish games really quick. Only recently I've discovered that, crazy as it sounds, Exalted Angel might in fact be another lockpiece. Think about Blinding Angel and compare it to Exalted. In a sense Exalted is just another softlock component for opposing aggrodecks. Ghostly Prison effectively says your opponent needs at least 2 mana to attack and consequently deal damage. Angel says your opponent needs at least 5 power of creatures on the table to deal damage. So theoretically just as he has to draw more mana when he's manascrewed he needs to draw more power/additional or bigger creatures when he's "locked" by Exalted. The lifegain works against non-infine damage based combo (Tendrils) and Burn in a similar way. Think of it as a pseudo Disrupting Scepter. Every time you gain life your opponent needs one more spell to kill you.
(Mind you I didn't say Muse is bad. I just wanted to show that you shouldn't cut Angel for it.)
"Anybody want some . . . toast?" —Jaya Ballard, Task Mage
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote