[DECK] Steel Stompy

[Spooks]

Regarding the addition of Tez 2.0 mentioned after the report, i've been tryin to squeeze them into my build. Underground Sea or Darkslick Shores works great alongside Seat of the Synod, but in your build i think you might get away with replacing the seats for them, relyng on the 6 Moxen or a second copy of a Dual for the second colour on Tez? However i'll have to test this to see how much it effects the Metalcraft.

Great job on the tourney report btw!

[GGoober]

So I had a revelation 2 days ago (2 days after SCG), pondering on my matchups against GWx decks.

Sometimes when you become too focused on certain card choices, you entirely fail to see other potential cards that trump certain matchups. Long story short, the previous MD/SB configurations to handle GWx decks with Knights/Goyfs/Pridemage/Hierarch benefited greatly from playing Cursed Totem. Yet at the same time, Cursed Totem is still not an answer to a growing knight from fetches, nor does it stop the more problematic matchups: Natural Order.

During SCG DFW, I witnessed the sheer power of Perish again when playing in the Legacy Challenge event. During the Legacy Opens, I saw Chris Elrond cast a timely Perish against AJSacher, and many other matchups where decks playing Perish (even though they were running green creatures) had the upper edge.

Here's the funny thing. I was too caught up on supporting the Overseer Strategy in the deck and not weaken my control/countertop matchup that I was reluctant to cut down the 2 blinkmoths. The real funny thing is that Steel Stompy already has quite favorable matchups against control, so the question becomes what would I cut the Blinkmoths for?

The answer now becomes clear. 2 Blinkmoth + Darksteel Citadel is turning into 3 Vault of Whispers (another huge bonus to turn 2 metalcraft and pumping Master/Plating). Now, with the Vaults, I can play Perish in the sideboard, which greatly improves my GWx matchups. I can also play Plague against Thopters/Goblins/Elves/Merfolks/humans if I needed to. Regardless, i am quite certain that on paper, this is the new direction for the deck. 6 manlands is great, but its biggest strength was against control decks. I guess I'll say that I'm willing to sacrifice a little on good matchups to greatly improve my chances against poorer matchups.

Now, with the changes, Plating/Master/metalcraft all become much stronger. There is the option to now insta-equip Plating as well (by a Mox + vault). This is a small bonus that is great. The last piece to the puzzle that I will get down to testing is playing with 2-3 Tezz 2.0 (as suggested by 2 forum members).

i want to remind the people reading/testing that black is not played for Tezz. Black is played for Perish, and supporting metalcraft primarily. Tezz 2.0 becomes something great if it works in the list. The color configuration seems a little tough to pull off Tezz 2.0's UB cost, but many games, I know that I draw Mox + artifact land quite frequently. Thank god that Mox Diamond and Mox Opal give any color (compared to Chrome Mox), so I know that running 2 Tezz should not be a problem at all. The greedy version will be to squeeze 3 Tezz (which I'm not willing).

Tezz 2.0 is a huge addition for the deck (if it works, needs testing again)
- He impulses for more threats and sets up for ultimate to win next turn.
- He immediately makes a 5/5 beater (either an insane Inkmoth or growing up your Lodestone/Revokers to comfortable toughness)
- His ultimate is what makes him broken in an artifact deck. The life gain will set you up from all the Tomb activations, or put a huge tempo advantage against other aggro decks, however, most cases, the ultimate is going to kill an opponent.

SCG DFW's winning Affinity list was built with such a principle: smash as much damage and with the 4 Tezz in the deck, either win with the ultimate while chumping blocking, or set the game life totals so apart that you have the win anyway.

Here's a sample list that I'll be testing today and on saturday

Lands: 23
4 Wasteland
4 Seat of the Synod
4 Vault of Whispers
4 Inkmoth Nexus
4 Ancient Tomb
3 City of Traitors
(the card to consider cutting is 4th Wasteland, 4th vault, 4th City and I decided that I can't drop wasteland, and vault can't be cut since you need to support Perish in the SB. City is argubly weak in multiples, although the way to fix this maybe to cut the 4th Vault keep the 4th City and play 4 Diamonds. I need to playtest these configurations more).

Creatures: 19
4 Steel Overseer
3 Phyrexian Revoker (in metagames where Revoker is more crucial, I'll drop 4th Overseer/Golem for the 4th Revoker)
4 Etched Champion
4 Master of Etherium
4 Lodestone Golem

Accelerants: 6
3 Mox Diamond
3 Mox Opal

Equipments: 5
3 Cranial Plating
2 Sword of Fire//Ice

Resistors: 6
4 Chalice of the Void
2 Crucible

Planeswalker: 2
2 Tezz 2.0

SB: 15
4 Perish
4 Thorn of Amethyst
2 Winter Orb
2 Umezawa's Jitte
3 Engineered Plague or Ratchet Bomb etc

I'll test a bunch for the next few weeks but gut feeling is Tezz 2.0's and Perish going to be the nuts with this new take. I could be very wrong though. This build is definitely more fragile to Powder Keg, Disk and Deeds though.

[LegacyInferno]

After reading this primier the last few days and finally joining today I really have to express the that I love the conceptual design of the deck. I took this into account tonight when I was writing for my latest blog entry about how I would build this deck.

I think I took into account many different aspects of artifact construction from over the years of play to what I believe would utilize the stompy factor with added control.

Legacy Inferno Steel Stompy V.1.0

Lands: 24
4 Ancient Den
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors
4 Wasteland
4 Seat of the Synod
4 Vault of Whispers

Creatures: 20
4 Metalworker
4 Phyrexian Revoker
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Etched Champion
4 Steel Hellkite

Non-creatures: 16
3 Mox Diamond
3 Mox Opal
4 Cranial Plating
4 Chalice of the Void
2 Tangle Wire

Sideboard: 15
3 Engineer Explosives
2 Winter Orb
4 Thorn of Amethyst
2 Umezawa’s Jitte
4 Perish

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Surprising. I've been playing something similar to this deck on MWS but with more MUD and less Stompy.

Lands (24):

4 City of Traitors
4 Ancient Tomb
4 Rishadan Port
4 Wasteland
4 Seat of the Synod
4 Blinkmoth Nexus

Creatures (20):

4 Lodestone Golem
4 Steel Overseer
4 Master of Etherium
4 Phyrexian Revoker
4 Etched Champion

Non-Creature Artifacts (16):

3 Crucible of Worlds
3 Mox Diamond
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Trinisphere
3 Mox Opal


I really couldn't imagine running something like this without the Trinispheres and Ports.

[GGoober]

Hey guys! Did a revamp on the opening post, trimmed up the post to make it more logical flowing (although it's more wordy than it used to be). I organized it in more sections/blocks to aid readers in understanding the basis of the deck.

@LegacyInferno:
Glad to see you like the concepts of the deck. I would say that the decklist is only about 20% of the work I put into this deck. 30-40% comes from playtesting and calculations/statistics, and the other 30% comes from analysis on functions of cards in the deck that apply to the deck.

Ever since I realized that playing 4 Master was consistent off 4 Seats and 3/3 Opal/Diamond, and realizing that a 2nd color can be splashed with ZERO issues as long as you are running another 4 artifact lands, there's a whole new dimension for the deck in terms of design. Canonist can definitely be played in a white splash, and would greatly solidfy matchups where it's needed. However, the main reason I still see that Master of Etherium being much more valuable than Canonist is simply that the deck needs win-conditions that are independnt on other cards. In addition, postboard, Steel Stompy with Thorns should be able to handle the matchups where Canonist is concerned (combo/control). against aggro decks, Canonist will be a retarding 2/2 body that eventally does nothing. IT's the same reason why Revoker sometimes feel underwhelming in the deck.

The big issue in trying to play decks that require imposed conditions on other cards is:
If you are doing so, you better make sure the combination of card is back-breaking enough e.g. Countertop, Natural Order + green dude, Show and Tell, Metalworker in Meandeck MUD. The only thing I don't like in your list is Metalworker. Trust me, I love Metalworker and it's one of my favorite cards in MTG, but I'm done trying to make him work. The simple fact is, Metalworker only works if your deck is built around it, and Steel Stompy's main philosophy is to avoid building decks upon a bent strategy. It primary wants to play every spell the way it is, powerful and full of potential and only be interested in synergies, and not dependencies between cards. Now, there is nothing wrong with Metalworker in Stompy/MUD, but I'll highlight that it is not for Steel Stompy, and the discussion be best improved on the other MUD threads. My only advice even if you plan to test Metalworker is to play 4 Diamonds (since you want to get turn 1 Metalworker. Turn 2 Metalworker is highly unimpressive when bulk of the spells in the deck can already be casted without Metalworker.

I do enjoy Steel Hellkite, and wonder if playing 2 in the Sideboard is stronger than playing the ratchet bombs. It's a little slow, but against matchups where it matters (Moat/Enchantress), it's quite a beast, I'm still leaning to Ratchet Bombs since they're great against Dredge/Belcher.

If there's one thing that I've learned from 4 years of playing legacy, and hearing comments that Stompy/Stax suck, I've finally learned why. The fundamental reason why Stax isn't too successful in Legacy as it is in Vintage is because of the heavier aggro component in Legacy. Stax has multiple outs to aggro (Magus + Geddon, Oring, Ghostly Prison), but the most important fact that none of these are absolute outs. And many times, the outs onl work when cards are paired together (Armageddon + Ghostly Prison, argaeddon + tabernacle effect). This is the reason why Stax faces a harder time against aggro and blue-based control would be the better control-role in Legacy against aggro. Stax does enjoy the upperhand of beating combo easily unless they go first and thoughtseize out a 3sphere.

The problem with Stompy, was fundamentally it was an aggro beatdown deck that could only win firmly when a lockpiece is involved. If Stompy simply played creatures without disruption, then it is very likely to lose (there's a reason why Legacy is filled with creatures like Goyfs instead of arc-sloggers and abyssal persecutors). The problem eventually became: you can never ensure that you can cast a turn 1 lockpiece unless you ran at least 6-8. However, running 6-8 lockpieces do not guanratee you draw them every game, or have the ability to play them turn 1 every game. Not to mention playing against decks that play Vials/hierarchs. The entire strategy crumbles when you draw below average or they have a counterstrategy inbuilt in their decks.

After this analysis (lots of experience as well), I decided I was willing to give up the bomb-approach of traditional stompy (sadly not being able to win games with blowout turn 1 Trinisphere is something to grieve over), and focus on a more beatdown approach with disruption. It took me awhile (1-2 months) to figure out that Steel Stompy played best as a tempo beatdown role (e.g. Merfolks). If I played it differently, the deck had to change towards either affinity or MUD-prison, and would cease to be what the list is today. all your suggestions have been great, and I've definitely missed out on previousl suggested cards e.g. Tezzeret 2.0, Inkmoth Nexus so keep them coming! But I hope you guys understand the unwillingness to change parts of the deck isn't due to ignorance, but rather I have to really think through the implications it has on the entire deck, and you can probably tell why I reject cards like metalworker so readily because if you've followed my train of thought, you'll understand why metalworker isn't too hot in the deck.


@darkshineknight:

I really really really like your list. If I were facing a more combo-heavy and control-heavy metagame, I'm 100% sure your list functions better than my list. In fact, the older list I played had 4 Wasteland, 3 crucibles, 3 Ports, and the only slots that differed from yours was having 4 Platings instead of 3 Trinisphere in the maindeck.

You may argue that Trinisphere is better than Plating, but I want to point out that I feel strongly that Plating is superior in a general metagame. Trinisphere loses to Vial/Hierarch on the draw, and since the deck isn't full MUD or full Affinity, the lockpieces that are played out need to be maintained in order to be effective. Since Steel Stompy is tending towards a beatdown deck for most parts, I usually prefer to win much faster with Plating.

hoever your list is definitely a good spin on a metagame tending towards more control/combo and less vial/hierarch.

[daugarten]

Hey Metalwalker, just wanted to finally post to let you know I've been following your post since Day 1 and appreciate all the work you put into the primer. It's clear that you not only want to show the community what a great deck you've created, but you write with the intention that others will hopefully pick it up and give it a whirl. If I had the budget this would be my deck for sure. Keep the updates coming :)

[GGoober]

Thanks daugarten, will continue to try to improve the deck. It's still pretty underdeveloped as there's quite a lot of tweaking in terms of the correct ratio of cards.

Rukus on the forums suggested a 4/2 Opal/Diamond split that I had been ignoring due to "emotional" feelings tied to playing 4 legendary copies of a card v.s. 3. I went ahead and did some calculations. The reason why things that don't look good without calculations can entirely change our views is because the concept of how many cards should be played ties directly what you want to do with the card.

Take for example the 4 v.s. 3 copies of Opal. What is the goal of Opal for this deck? I'll list out exactly what this deck wants out of playing Opal i.e. the goals of Opal that I feel make the deck strong and therefore the statistics should fit into these goals if possible
1) Draw ONE Opal by turn two (i.e. if I have turn two Opal, I feel that this deck should be pulling ahead in games)
2) Draw ONE Opal for turns three and four (i.e. I don't want to see two Opals on turn three and four ideally since I want to draw business spells)
3) Draw more than one Opal on turn 5 or later (i.e. by turn 5, I should have emptied my hand, and drawing any card is irrelevant at that point i.e. you could draw lands, opals, useless cards but the priority is to ensure that multiple Opals should be drawn on turn 5 or later).

Obviously if you change the goals for Opal, the maths changes, but I feel that I'm laying out realistic goals for Opal and then working to check which ratio of 4 v.s. 3 copies of Opal is ideal to hit these goals.

Here're the results from calculations:
Running 4 Opals

Opals Drawn....3..........2..........1..........0
Turn 1:........0.36%.....5.76% .....33.27%....60.60%
Turn 2:........0.57%.....7.39% .....35.91%....56.11%
Turn 3:........0.84%.....9.15% .....38.11%....51.88%
Turn 4:........1.17%.....10.99% ....39.91.%....47.89%
Turn 5:........1.58%.....12.91%.....41.31%....44.13%
Turn 6:........2.07%.....14.87% .....42.37%....40.60%
Turn 7:........2.63%.....16.86% .....43.09%....37.29%


Running 3 Opals

Opals Drawn....3..........2..........1..........0
Turn 1:........0.10%.....3.15% .....27.83%....68.92%
Turn 2:........0.16%.....4.12% .....30.63%....65.09%
Turn 3:........0.23%.....5.20% .....33.16%....61.41%
Turn 4:........0.33%.....6.38% ....35.43%....57.86%
Turn 5:........0.46%.....7.64% .....37.44%....54.46%
Turn 6:........0.61%.....8.99% .....39.21%....51.19%
Turn 7:........0.79%.....10.40% .....40.74%....48.06%


To analyze this data, we compare it to the goals (note the bolded data above relates to the goals)

Analysis for 4 Opals minus 3 Opals [analysis for 1 Opal drawn in "[ ]" brackets] (analysis for 2 Opals drawn in "( )" brackets)
Turn 1: [5.44%] (2.61%)
Turn 2: [5.28%] (3.27%)
Turn 3: [4.95%] (3.95%)
Turn 4: [4.48%] (4.62%)
Turn 5: [3.87%] (5.27%)
Turn 6: [3.15%] (5.89%)
Turn 7: [2.34%] (6.46%)

We see that playing 4 Opals, we will have 5.44%, 5.28%, 4.95%, 4.48% more chance to draw it on turns 1, 2, 3, 4 than from playing 3 Opals. There is the risk of drawing double Opals on turn 1, 2, 3, 4 with the risk being 2.61%, 3.27%, 3.95%, 4.62%.

From turns 5, 6, 7, the chance to continue to draw just 1 Opal by playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals is 3.87%, 3.15%, 2.34% and the risk of drawing double Opal is 5.27%, 5.89%, 6.46%.

Now, I'm not sure how to analyze risk, but for argument's sake, let's pretend that each % point in drawing 1 Opal is the same as drawing 2 Opals (sometimes you can say that the % point value for risk of drawing double Opal should be higher since it's a dead card, but the games won by drawing the 1 Opal instead of drawing none could be huge as well, so I'm not going to debate how to assign values to % point. In the future, I would like to work out some equations on how to assign 'values' to cards, i.e. how important certain cards are based on how many games they win you the game etc)

Back on topic, assuming each % point in value from drawing 1 Opal is the same as the % point in risk from drawing double Opal:
We see that by playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals,
Turn 1: [5.44%] - (2.61%) = +2.83%
Turn 2: [5.28%] - (3.27%) = +2.01%
Turn 3: [4.95%] - (3.95%) = +1.01%
Turn 4: [4.48%] - (4.62%) = -0.14%
Turn 5: [3.87%] - (5.27%) = -1.4%
Turn 6: [3.15%] - (5.89%) = -2.73%
Turn 7: [2.34%] - (6.46%) = -4.12%

The benefits of playin 4 Opals over 3 Opals breaks even on Turn 6 to turn 7. On Turn 6, the overall value of playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals is the sum of these % values = +1.58%. On Turn 7, the overall risk on playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals is now -2.53% and gets worse as the turn drags on (since you'l draw more Opals the longer the game drags).

But this analysis has been very interesting for me. Remeber that the result of the analysis is dependent on what we expect and how we set up the goals for the scenario. In the 3 Goals I have provided above, it seems that for turns 1 to 6, playing 4 Opals is more ideal than 3. Playing 4 Opals will allow you to see 1 Opal on turns 2 to 5 much more frequently, and although there's the risk of drawing double Opals earlier as well, we see that this does not set in until turn 7. If you assign more value in drawing an Opal early and less value than drawing double Opal (which I personally do), then this analysis skews even more in favor for playing 4 Opals over 3.

Lastly, I tested over 10 games with a friend with the 4/2 split. I liked it better. I tested another 30+ goldfished games before I slept just to get a feel, and it felt better. The main reason isn't really just entirely drawing Opal early frequently (40 games is not enough to tell), but the big plus was I no longer have the feeling I'm out of lands. For some god-damn reason, Mox Diamond still sucks with a high land count. i.e. cards disappearing (card disadvantage) is a horrible feeling. I think that 2 Diamonds is still great, in making sure you have 8 Sol-lands + 2 Diamonds = 10 ways to grab 2 mana on turn 1. Anyway, the computation will be tougher when Diamond isin the picture figuring out the 4/2 split. But that's for another time. I'll try to tabulate my results on Google docs in the future, but I'm usually lazy and just want to play video games. I know these analysis have to be done at one point though. I have always disliked the 'hand-wavy' arguments I think you should play 3 instead of 4 etc. I fall into that trap a lot, so thanks to you guys keeping the suggestion and letting me test these out. The way I think about MTG is: The maths and everything technical is inbuilt in deck design. The choices of cards/ratios are all determined by maths nothing else. When this is optimized, the rest is on the hands of the player i.e. playskill. Since I know that I'm not a good player (hopefully will get better), I want to know that my deck does what it's supposed to do, and any fault is pushed to the player/myself for not piloting the deck correctly. In summary, I don't want to tie emotions to my gameplay i.e. I bitch that I draw mutliple Opals in maybe 10% of games where those Opals had helped me win 80% of games because I got them out early. It's always easy for us to recognize the bad side of experiences than the good ones, and this whole analysis is to avoid that.

Anyway, I think Opal is pretty busted in Legacy decks that can support it. It's like playing Power 9 Moxen against decks without it. I always joke to my buddy that I draw Opal you lose. Most of the time it's true (since you just cast everything a turn faster without card disadvantage), but sometimes better cards and sweepers get in there :P

[tsabo_tavoc]

To analyze this data, we compare it to the goals (note the bolded data above relates to the goals)

Analysis for 4 Opals minus 3 Opals [analysis for 1 Opal drawn in "[ ]" brackets] (analysis for 2 Opals drawn in "( )" brackets)
Turn 1: [5.44%] (2.61%)
Turn 2: [5.28%] (3.27%)
Turn 3: [4.95%] (3.95%)
Turn 4: [4.48%] (4.62%)
Turn 5: [3.87%] (5.27%)
Turn 6: [3.15%] (5.89%)
Turn 7: [2.34%] (6.46%)

We see that playing 4 Opals, we will have 5.44%, 5.28%, 4.95%, 4.48% more chance to draw it on turns 1, 2, 3, 4 than from playing 3 Opals. There is the risk of drawing double Opals on turn 1, 2, 3, 4 with the risk being 2.61%, 3.27%, 3.95%, 4.62%.

From turns 5, 6, 7, the chance to continue to draw just 1 Opal by playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals is 3.87%, 3.15%, 2.34% and the risk of drawing double Opal is 5.27%, 5.89%, 6.46%.

Now, I'm not sure how to analyze risk, but for argument's sake, let's pretend that each % point in drawing 1 Opal is the same as drawing 2 Opals (sometimes you can say that the % point value for risk of drawing double Opal should be higher since it's a dead card, but the games won by drawing the 1 Opal instead of drawing none could be huge as well, so I'm not going to debate how to assign values to % point. In the future, I would like to work out some equations on how to assign 'values' to cards, i.e. how important certain cards are based on how many games they win you the game etc)

Back on topic, assuming each % point in value from drawing 1 Opal is the same as the % point in risk from drawing double Opal:
We see that by playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals,
Turn 1: [5.44%] - (2.61%) = +2.83%
Turn 2: [5.28%] - (3.27%) = +2.01%
Turn 3: [4.95%] - (3.95%) = +1.01%
Turn 4: [4.48%] - (4.62%) = -0.14%
Turn 5: [3.87%] - (5.27%) = -1.4%
Turn 6: [3.15%] - (5.89%) = -2.73%
Turn 7: [2.34%] - (6.46%) = -4.12%

The benefits of playin 4 Opals over 3 Opals breaks even on Turn 6 to turn 7. On Turn 6, the overall value of playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals is the sum of these % values = +1.58%. On Turn 7, the overall risk on playing 4 Opals over 3 Opals is now -2.53% and gets worse as the turn drags on (since you'l draw more Opals the longer the game drags).

Very nice analysis! Also, it applies to all decks running Opals, like Affinity and Painter:) Just to add, if the number in parantheses are changed to the differences in drawing multiples (instead of drawing 2), the zero point of the difference stays between Turn3-4, but that of difference sum will move to Turn 5-6. 4 Opals are still superior by your arguments, but less overwhelming.

[GGoober]

Good catch! Yes when typing it out here, I only considered 2 Opals drawn and not 3 to 4 because on my spreadsheets the numbers were very small (less than 1%), but that definitely adds in for the complete picture. Also forums don't let you 'tabulate' data (at least I dont' know how) so it's painful to type out another 2x7 entries of data :p

In the future I'll be uploading a lot of analysis on google docs. I think it's nice to have these information out for the community. Just to highlight the importance on the goals of analysis affecting the analysis.

Imagine in the above information that we are considering 4 Goyfs instead of 4 mox opal.

All the statistical data is the same, but the result will be different, because on how we set the goals e.g. I want to draw multiple goyfs, so that makes the analysis result different from above. I.e. playing 4 Goyfs will always be better than playing 3, unless you don't want to see Goyfs as frequently on turns 6+ (you're crazy then). If it's an analysis about 4th Goyf v.s. 3rd Knight, that would be much more complicated to set up, but not impossible, just have to isolate certain fields and make a few assumptions.

[daugarten]

Quick question: Your analysis was based on 61 cards, correct?

The numbers will probably all inflate ever so slightly for a standard 60-card deck, I think.

[Tacosnape]

If they are more than 5 life, Inkmoth in every situation without a pump is going to win faster than Inkmoth.

I'd like this explained. If an opponent is at 8, for example, Blinkmoth wins in 8 swings, Inkmoth wins in 10.

[GGoober]

typo error there taco :P

And yes analysis was with 61 cards. 60v.s. 61 cards affect 4-card analysis by about 0.4% to 1.2% depending on how many turns have passed.

[Koby]

Another awesome analysis Metalworker! The part I really love about Opal in this deck is that it enables such a quick clock as early as turn 2 Lodestone. I am definitly in the camp that will be running both black and blkue for Tezz and the better sb. Look out for me testing this deck on MTGO. I'll keep a spreadsheet with test games and notes and then we could run some analysis on the results to validate the setup.

[Spooks]

My buddies are on the way over for some testing, i'm expecting to be playing this list versus Boros, Stasis, Ravager Affinity and maybe some rogue decks. I'll let ya'll know how it pans out, and a big thank-you to Metalworker for all your efforts getting this list looking so tidy!

[KnightElite]

Thanks for this very cool decklist Metalworker, I really like it (and appreciate the amount of effort you've put into it). I've been playing Meandeck MUD in legacy for the last little bit, and workshop aggro in Vintage since before Lodestone Golem got printed, so this is definitely the kind of deck I like to see. I may well try this out at the local legacy tournament next weekend.

That said, I noticed one significant flaw in your primer, that being this line:

With the recent inclusion of Tezzeret 2.0, Inkmoth has found itself yet another strong reason to be played over Blinkmoth. Even if you are not able to swing in, you are having a 5/5 flying infect blocker that will immediately shrink any dude on the defense. This is where a 5/5 Blinkmoth may sometimes be incapable of dealing with larger Goyfs/Knights and very often be a chump blocker.

Inkmoth Nexus + Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas interracts in such a way that it is impossible to get a 5/5 infect on your opponent's turn. Here's how this works:

• On your turn, you turn Nexus into a 1/1 infect flyer. You then hit it with Tezzeret's -1 ability, and he is now a 5/5 infect flyer artifact creatre land until the end of the turn.
• At the end of the turn, the nexus's "I am 1/1 infect flyer" ability stops working. Nexus is now a 5/5 non-flying non-infect artifact creature land.
• Your opponent attacks you, and you want to block with your 5/5 Nexus. When you animate it, its ability makes it a 1/1 flying infect creature again (since both Tezzeret's and Nexus' power/toughness abilities are set at the same layer, timestamp order is applied, with nexus' effect being more recent). Nexus becomes a 1/1 creature, instead of 5/5.
• This means that two uses of Tezzeret's -1 ability are required to make nexus 5/5 flying infect twice to hit for 10 poison.

Hope this hasn't been too important to your testing with Tezzeret in the list :).

[Koby]

I'm keeping an active log through my playtesting.

Click here to view. Please let me know if there's any suggestions for stuff to keep track of, such as drawing a specific card, or opening hands.

[GGoober]

Hey KnightElite, thanks for that great piece of info! I'll update the primer to include this. Like I said, I'm a terrible player, so thanks for pointing this valuable information out. Better to scrub out online in theorycrafting than actual games :P

@Rukcus, that is a great log (I need to start doing those myself). I usually don't have patience to keep a log and report for tournaments I play but this will be great. I think a great thing to keep track of is:

1) Opening hands with X lands playing 22-24 lands in the deck. How many lands did you keep e.g. 2 or 3, how many of those hands you kept that lost to an opposing Wasteland (this deck's curve is pretty high).
2) How many hands with Mox Diamond did you feel was underwhelming i.e. do we really need fast mana on turn 1? Or is it better to mull the no-Sol-land hands to find a Sol-land and a 2-drop.

Basically, think of the TLDR of the analysis 3 post above as:
Imagine that you drew an opening hand of 2 Opals. That's bad. Now, Imagine you drew an opening hand of Mox Diamond. Assume you don't need the Mox mana on turn 1, casting the Diamond is the same as having a dead card (i.e. the land discarded was the card disadvantage). Now, you do get to recur the lands back with Crucible, but putting Crucible outside the picture, the only benefit that Diamond has in this scenario is providing turn 1 mana that Opal doesn't to no-Sol-land hands, or to be played later while discarding lands. Regardless, the initial startup cost is the same as a dead card where 2 Opals were drawn. For this very reason, I understand why I hated Chrome Mox so much in Stompy decks. I felt I was losing a lot of gas too fast while my opponent still had a huge hand of answers. I still think at least 2-3 Diamond is needed in the deck because to ensure higher chances on hitting 2 mana without sol-lands to cast post-board hate to combo, and to start with 2 mana in most games. But it stresses the huge power level between Diamond and Opal.

Got my foil Tezzerets in today, so I'll be able to play this list tomorrow :) I tested over 15 games with RB Goblins today. All pre-board games i.e. I have no 2x Jitte, he has no Tuk Tuks and maybe Pyrokinesis or Shattering Sprees.

He won about 7 games, I won about 8 games. They were pretty even games with myself pulling a little ahead. I think 4-5 games he won with turn 1 Lackeys and me not having blockers/outs/bounced/edicted blockers. The other games where Lackey is out of the picture, I won. If Goblins is unable to get Lackey, you can beat it fairly easily without Jitte. He won 1-2 games with fast Warchiefs and chaining Ringleaders, but I think the matchup is very favored for Steel Stompy if Lackey is out of the picture (Vial is still too slow against Steel Stompy), and very unfavored for STeel Stompy if Lackey connects.

Rukcus, I disagree with the SB plan against goblins. I would keep Chalice in if I'm on the play. Being able to draw Chalice@1 on turn 1 = win when both Lackey and Vial are out of the picture.

Favorite opening against aggro decks without removal on turn 1 for Steel Stompy:
Turn 1 Overseer, Turn 2 Lodestone put +1/+1 counter on both dudes, turn 3 Master/Champion/Revoker/Plating/etc + Wasteland = 2 turns behind and facing a 7/5 Golem and 3/3 Overseer + turn 3 play GG

[Koby]

@CotV SB,
I suppose this is a force of habit with Chalice decks vs Vial. 100% agree that on the draw, CotV loses much of it's utility vs Merfolk and Goblins. SoFI might be the right call here, but is still expensive. Champion also does a good job stemming these matchups, esp with our own Jitte.

Right now, my deck is build with 22 lands - 3 Vaults 2 Blinkmoth 1 Factory (don't have Inkmoths yet)

[GGoober]

@Rukcus:

I think Chalice@1 on the play/draw is not worth it against Merfolks. To just shut Vial down isn't worth it, and Merfolks is quite favored for us even if they get Vial (still have Revoker as outs and Overseer and lots of other dudes + Jitte/SoFI). Ratchet Bomb is VERY good against Merfolks. It gives you 3 Bomb + 4 Revoker against Vial, and sweeps their 2cmc board. I board out -2 Crucible, -2 Tezz, -2 Plating, +2 Jitte, +1 SOFI, +3 Ratchet today.

On the other hand, against Goblins:
On the Play, I don't board out Chalice. It hits 4 Lackeys, 4 Vials, well worth it if I drew it. If I don't draw it, then it's a dead card most likely, but no other sideboard card has the best chance to deal with Lackey on the play (even Jitte isn't as powerful as Chalice on the play against gobs when you need to shut off Lackey).

If there's any sideboard plans/strategies that you feel is superior/flawed please discuss it, because these are my thoughts, but sometimes I feel taht I'm boarding wrong against matchups, e.g. sometimes I feel that the maindeck as it is is strong against certain matchups instead of trying to board cards in out and diluting the original strategy.

On the Draw, I board OUT Chalice. It's dead in every way once they get either/and Lackey/Vial in play. I board in 2 Jittes, 1 SoFI and keep everything in. RAtchet Bomb is bad against Goblins since the critical cards to hit are actually 3cmc cards i.e. Warchief. You can block Piledriver all day long but Warchief is what makes them have a huge edge since they are 2 turns faster for every creature dropped.

I probably won't type a report, but I took '2nd' Place for the GP Providence Trial at my local store. We had 17 players (not a lot but still about 5 rounds), so some brief notes. List is in the Opening post (most current list).

Match 1: UB Merfolks (2-0-0)
G1: Chalice@1 shuts his 2 Vials + 1 Cursecatcher hand. Overseer + Dudes get in there
G2: Keep double Ratchet Bomb hand (so awesome). Play Overseer resolves, he resolves Vial, play Bomb and clear Vial, Golem gets online next dodging Daze, Wasteland on Sea GG. He had 2 LoA, 1 Coralhelm, 3 Daze stuck in his hand. Golem killed all those cards and Sol-lands dodged the daze for Golem.

Match 2: Junk (1-2-0)
G1: Junk is the worst matchup for this deck. I sigh. He does what Junk does kills every creature and discard my hand. I manage to sneak a Plating, and 2 hit with Inkmoth FTW.
G2: I mull to 5 from no lands, still a weak hand. He wins it easily with a Hymn
G3: Game was intense, too lazy to go to detail. But basically Jitte is a good counter to Steel Stompy (Inkmoth and Champion). I have Revoker naming Jitte + Etched Champion in play so his Knight can't swing in. He plays Elspeth makes a dude. I have plating in hand going to go in with Champion to kill Elspeth in 1 hit. He plays EPlague naming Horror killing Revoker, jumps soldier with Jitte, kills Champion, GG. EPlague naming Horror was game winning :(

Match 3: Goblins (2-1-0)
G1: He has no turn 1 Lackey. Theorem 6 in Steel Stompy: If Goblins has no Lackey in play, I win. QED (i.e. proof proved!).
G2: He has Lackey, I have Overseer to block. He has removal, he has siege gang. The reverse of Theorem 6 holds true it seems (I lose if they connect with Lackey and if I have no Jitte active).
G3: He has no lackey again, but this time I bring in the pain with Jitte. He had the choice to get double Warren's Wierding to stop Jitte from getting counters but he opted for Warchief instead. Jitte gets counter and it was too much for Gobs to handle. Even if he did double Weirding me, I still had 3 more dudes in hand. He has to answer Jitte this game which doesn't seem like he could get enough Matrons for Weirdings and tuktuks (not sure if he was playing one) but I think he was tied on mana when I dropped Golem after his matron

Match 4: Pox (2-1-0)
G1: He mulls to 5. I keep a nice hand of 7 with Champions. He tempos me with removal, innocent blood on Champion, plays a Chimeric Mass for 4, kills me with a 4/4. He probably drew really well to have removal for every dude I played and maintaining 4 land drops :/
G2: I rage, Turn 1 Chalice, drop Opal. He hits 2 mana Ratchet Bombs Chalice + Opal. I rage and play Winter Orb in my opening hand. He untaps 1 land, I untap Tomb, play another Opal + Land, Lodestone him. He untaps another land (misses a land drop), I waste his land swing 5. He untaps land ( only 2 untapped). I untap and drop 2nd Lodestone GG
G3: He has double Bloodghast eating in on me. My Chalice@1 Resolves with REvoker on Ratchet Bomb. Master + Revoker > Double Bloodghast and 3 Innocent Blood locked under a Chalice@1.


Match 5: TES (2-0-0)
G1: I keep hand: Ancient Tomb, Overseer, Chalice, Seat, Double Plating, Opal. He wins die roll. If he has Duress I cry. He starts the game with USea, tap for black and make me cry. I drop Overseer turn 2. Turn 3 I equip 1 Plating hit him down to 13. Turn 4 I kill him with double plating. His brainstorm was crappy so he couldn't go off turn 3. I would not have won without Double Plating in this scenario

G2: I mull to 6. Keep a hand of Turn 1 Thorn + Wasteland + Golem + Ratchet + Revoker. I play Turn 1 Thorn, followed up with Revoker on Petals (didn't name LED since I felt it was hard for TES to storm up without removing Thorns so LED wasn't relevant where Petal was more relevant in fighting Thorns to grab hate). I hit 4 mana drop a Lodestone, wasteland it was GG. Clock was 3 turns. I love Lodestone Golem aka Trinisphere + 5/3 in one card. AMAZING!

I dropped the Top 4 to let my buddies have a shot at the byes for GPT. My result standing was 2nd place (4-1-0), with Junk having a record of (4-0-1)


PROPS:
- Tezzeret was pretty powerful in games where I resolved him. He's really really quite broken in this deck. However, since I played Pox/TES, I actually boarded him out due to bad synergy with Thorns, and being a little slow, but otherwise he's quite a powerful force. I usually use his +1 80% of the time unless his -1 allows me to swing for lethal. It's much better to keep drawing threats, and using him as a distraction while you play even more distracting pieces (usually you want to impulse with his +1 and find Plating/Golem/Champion/Master).
- Solid Combo matchup
- Beat Goblins if they don't have lackeys
- Plating is broken.
- Lodestone is quite nuts on turn 2.

SLOPS:
- Junk is very unfavorable. The only way to win is with Plating, nothing else. Perish isn't good against Junk since they don't ever need to overextend when your board is always empty. If they play Deeds, it's just tough. I think AFfinity has much better matchup against Junk despite being more fragile to Deed than this deck, because it just kills them faster before Deed is ever relevant
- Losing to a mulled-to-5 Pox.
- Perish not being useful today.

Just a disclaimer, Steel Stompy is still in its infant stage. The black splash gives you 2 Tezz 2.0 MD with Perish in the SB. The white splash is another very strong alternative, giving you 4 Canonist over 4 Revoker MD, and in the SB you can play Karmic Justices against decks taht rape you (e.g. Junk) or Hanna's Custody. However, I think the white splash doesn't offer as the black splash in terms of card value, but the most exciting thing is, we still have new phyrexia to look forward to, to more SB/color options. White is huge potential with 4 Canonist (you don't replace any slots except for Revokers), and depending whata New Phyrexia gives. Here's hoping Karn Planeswalker doesn't suck. So far Tezz fits very nicely in what the deck needs. Impulse for 5 is really strong. I impulsed twice with Tezz to dig for a plating (that's digging 10 cards in 2 turns in a Stompy deck! WTF?!)

[Mayckol]

Hi there!

I'd like to tell you about my experience with this deck....first of all, I think this is a very good deck, maybe not a tier1 but it's very good and interesting deck to play in a field with almost none traditional zoo.... like mine

Last sunday I went to a qualifier to Brazilian National Legacy Championship decided to get this deck (I've been testing the Ub version for 1 month....) a chance.

I finished 14th of about 70 players.... with a result of 4-2.

this is the list I played.

lands:
4 Tomb
4 City
4 Synod
4 Vault of whispers
4 wasteland
4 inkmoth

acceleration
3 opal
3 diamond

creatures
4 overseer
4 golem
4 master of etherium
3 revoker
4 champion

control
4 chalice
2 CoW

equip:
1 Jitte
1 Cranial
1 Fire and Ice
1 Light and Shadow

2 tezz, agent of bolas

side
3 thinisphere
3 perish
3 relic of prog
3 ensnaring bridge
1 thopter foundry (I forgot to take it off after some tests in the day before....)
2 ratchet bomb



My parings:

match 1: teammate with GW Taxes

It's not a good game for steel stompy in my opinion. It's better than mono w death & taxes but qasalis are terrible....

game1 - I couldn't do anything good and he draw 3 qasalis and a KotR....
game2 - I made my great mistake.... I didn't sided in the perishs, only bombs and relics. This game stand too long and in the late game my draw sequence was: land, land, champion, land, land, land, while he played KotR, Gaddock, Qasali and something else..... I lost

0-1

Match 2: BGW Junk

Another bad match.....
game1 - I thought he was playing goblins. I started with chalice>1 and he played a swamp, I played a land and a overseer and he a Hymn to Tourach, he removed my overseer, play goyf, KotR, I lost

Game 2 - side in Perish, relic. I started with chalice@1 again, lodestone turn2, overseer and a equip turn3..... win

Game 3 - He seize my golem (I think), after he HtT and I didn't have cards in my hand.... lost

0-2

I was very disapointed with the deck, I really wated to give up and just watch my teammates playing, but I kept playing, and deck rewarded me...

Match 3: Goblins Rb

Game 1 - he played a mountain and passed (it's a burn, I thought). I played a land (I think) and passed. He played a Piledriver, me a overseer, he another piledriver, me a Master and a revoker. He played two Goblin Guide and attacked with all.... I blocked killing Piledrivers and 1 GG, he gave up.

Game 2 - Side in 3nisphere - he played a guide that took me 6 life but my creatures became very big very fast and I won.

1 - 2

Match 4 - New Affinity

I thought it'd be a complicated match because of affinity is very fast, but I was a little bit wrong.

Game 1 and 2 were similar: he played some creatures and a signal pest, bit me to low life (about 4-5) and I controlled the game with CoW and Wasteland recursive, chalice@1 and 3nisphere (this is the best card against this deck in my opinion).....

2-2

Match 5 - Enchantress

I really didn't know how to play against this deck (I've never tested this match).

Game 1 - He played a forest and a aura over his forest (I don't remenber what). I played a chalice@1, he did a presence. I did a golem and stomped him.

Game 2 - Side in bomb - turn 2 he played a Aura of silence (I really didn't like it...) but I draw a inkmoth and I had a overseer in battlefield.... 3 turns and he was infected.....

3 - 2

Match 6 - Thopter control

Game 1 - I couldn't realize what he was playing in game 1 until he played a thopter foundry in turn 1x.... I killed with two or three big creatures I don't remember.

Game 2 - no side - This game was very long too.... he played Jace TMS, needle, bloodmoon, ensnaring bridge and a lot of things to delay me....and.... I play Tezzeret and he said (Oh, I lost.... but lets play) two turns after that I had 10 artifacts in play and ultimated him..... It was awesome.

4 - 2

I liked to see how this deck is against the major os most popular decks in my field. After the championship I tested against combo (won 3-1), monored control (won 4-1), new affinity (won 2-0).

Probably I'll get this deck another chance in the next championship...

So it's all...

Sorry my english mistakes and my memory for details....

See ya