You do make good points and undoutedly have a lot more experience with the deck. Based on the games I've played, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I'll go under the assumption that most of those choices you make are pretty optimal until I have the testing to back me up.
What I would like is an honest discussion of the strengths/weaknesses of the Ramosian Sergent/Whipcorder engine.
In the current meta, I really can't think of any noncombo decks where this engine with the Sergent's ability to be played before any control player can reach 1U, and then pump out multiple uncounterable excellent utility 2/2 creatures that can deal with so many common threats... Goblin Welder, Exalted Angel, Tradewind Rider, Goblin Piledriver or any other attacker, Psychatog, Arrogant Wurm, Mother of Runes etc. etc. etc.
Even against decks packing multiple counters/burn/removal spells, this engine is well worth it because either component works completely independently off the other and this effectively means there are six-eight (depending on how many slots you give the engine) more must counter/burn/remove creatures in your deck. This takes some of the heat off of your other MVPs like Mother of Runes, Exalted Angel as well as burn targeted at you.
I'm trying to think of a single noncombo deck where this engine isn't a large boon and I can't.
If playing this engine means putting less emphasis on the Mask of Memory engine, I think the trade of is well worth it. But I don't think such a trade is neccesary. This engine helps in all of the matches that Parallax Wave helps in and it helps in many matches that Parallax Wave is less than optimal in. I think moving 1-2 Waves to the sideboard, cutting a few one drops etc will free up enough room to play both engines simulatanously.
I'm afraid agreement to disagree is the only thing we can do. Ramosian Seargant has synergy with only Whipcorder. Sword and Mask have synergy with every single creature in the deck. Outside of a deck dedicated specifically to soldiers, I see no reason to dilute the consistency of the rest of any deck with an unnecessary "engine", particularly one which forces you to omit Parallax Waves, which are fundamental vital to this deck's strategy.
You say that the soldier engine is strong against noncombo decks, and yet you have yet to name a matchup that the engine improves that isn't already a very strong one for this deck. As for the Burn/Goblins matchup, I absolutely assure you that the loss of Knights/Priests will harm those matchups. I know because I've tested those matchups extensively with Whipcorders in place of Priests, and they weren't nearly as strong of matchups as they are now.
To summate: you're proposing the addition of an unnecessary engine, while replacing the very strongest elements of the deck as they pertain to a large portion of the field. As stated, I have yet to see the benefit inherent in the proposed changes. Until you can provide me with testing results definitively illustrating an improvement in results against one or more prevalent archetypes, I see no reason to continue the discussion.
The only reason I could possibly think to add the rebel engine would be to help the control match-up giving you a good one-drop into uncounter, recurring two-drops. But that point is nigh-useless as this deck already runs over most forms of control due to as Godzilla put it, "the high contigant of threats". We simply already have too many threats for any form of control, sans a board sweeper, to deal with. Thats why you dont over-exert and have the D-chants main and a second full set SB in the form of Seal.
I can. Anything with removal. Also in terms of it being a large boon, see the next sections.I'm trying to think of a single noncombo deck where this engine isn't a large boon and I can't.
The problem here is that you're assuming the card advantage given from both engines is the same. Granted they each net you one card, but the way in which they accomplish this is much different. The mask engine not only provides card advantage, but it provides it as you apply pressure to the opponent. The Sergeant/Whipcorder engine also gives you a card each time it is used, but you're not applying any pressure while you do it. You're sacrificing an attacker to achieve the same amount of card advantage.If playing this engine means putting less emphasis on the Mask of Memory engine, I think the trade of is well worth it.
The goal of the deck is to keep pressure on your opponent with hard to remove attackers, in terms of protection and evasion, while maintaining card advantage. Sacrificing Knights and Priests for Sergeants and Whipcorders reduces your threat density, as Sergeants and Whipcorders are lousy attackers. Also fewer Knights and Priests makes the mask engine weaker.
You also didn't mention tempo with your rebel engine. The Sergeant requires 3 mana to search, and you have to tap it. What this means is that early/midgame you won't be able to search and play threats at the same time. Instead of using your mana to play good threats (Priests/Knights), you're using it for bad threats (Whipcorders). Also this deck doesn't want an excess of 1 drops that you can't attack with. Mother of Runes fills that role. Having 7 or 8 one drops that are poor attackers drastically reduces the effectiveness of the deck. You want fast, cheap beaters. Not slow, fragile card advantage.
I don't know how else to put it, the mask engine is clearly superior in terms of advantage (card and tempo) to *this* specific deck. You can't cut out the things that make this deck and engine good and replace them with a subpar engine. You're trying to go in a totally different direction than the deck wants to go in.
It response to this comment, I just played a half-built form of this deck (minus two Priests cause I still need to find two; plus two plains) and this deck doesn't need any help with the control matchup. I swam right over MonoU Control. I had twice as many cards as he did and he ran out of counters or was tapped out for at least half my threats.Originally Posted by banky
In response to any issues with the manabase. I ran 13 lands and 11 lands, this little difference is alot. When I ran with full priests I found that I might start with a few mana short. With 13 land the early game was eashy but I ended up with too much mana. I'm going to test with 12 but I think that 11 is the perfect amount. Just shuffle decent and even though mana may seem tight, you'll come on very strong and heavy all the way through the game. I find the early game similar to sligh and the late game equal to a control deck.
Team Technology - Think it's good? Prove it.
Control is an easy matchup now?
Both Veldalken Shackles and Powder Kegs hurt you significantly. And most good control variant utilize both. Even Ophidian poses a pretty big problem when you can't resolve a swords of Wave. Any control deck splashing Exalted Angels itself will give you a hard time. BBS may not be heavily against you but I certainly wouldn't classify it as easy. And against the variants the splash white, this deck can have a hard time. Believe me, I know. I tested this pretty throughly against my BBS/w variant posted below.
I think there's a misconception about this deck. It may be fast but most of the aggro decks in the format are faster. It uses utility in the form of swords, first strikers and mother of runes to buy the time you need to win thanks to tempo and card advantage. And it does this very well against aggro decks. What this deck does have a hard time with or other slow decks like Survival and Control. And your Hounds and Lions don't do much to hurt these matchups. The second they play their Ophidian or any of their utility cards, you lose. As long as you don't cut the first strikers or the mothers of runes or swords to plowshores, aggro matchups are still heavily in your favor. And the tempo and card advantage that you gain by playing both the Mask of Memory and the Rebel engine in the midgame greatly aid against these matchups.
This deck simply has no means to deal Veldalken Shackles and will also lose a great deal to a Powder Keg. Your disenchants and Waves will simply not resolve. And I fully expect to see a playset of Shackles and a playset of Powder Kegs in the sideboard or maindeck atleast in a variety of control decks. But if it could play multiple Whipcorders, you can simply tap the creature they steal with Shackles or rapidly recover from Keg with your Sergents.
It's not a bad matchup but it's certainly not an easy one either. Without the second engine, you do have a hard time resolving anything significant for a long time. That decks angels counter act this decks angels fine and there's no way they're going to let you resolve a Wave. Even if you somehow resolve the wave, unless you already have an angel in play, they can easily afford to wait you out. And their card advantage is superior to your in every way.
Adding the rebel engine makes this a very favorable matchup since the whipcorders are counterable whether you play them morphed or with the sergent.
I'm not advocating cutting the SOFI, Mask of Memory or any of the pro red guys.
Here what I do advocate
-3 Savannah Lions (You really don't need them to beat aggro and Sergent are far better against control and survival variants)
-1 or 2 Parallax Wave (Whipcorders serve a similar function anyways)
-1 Disenchant (Considering how dead this is against popular decks like Goblin Sligh and Madness, three is too high a number to maindeck especially since Whipcorders improve the Survival matchup.)
+3 or 2 Ramosian Sergent
+3 Whipcorder
There is absolutely no reason why playing this second engine (3 Sergent/3 Whipcorder) requires that you cut either your pro red creatures or the masks of memory. Since the Sergents are one drops, you can easily cut a few Lions for them without really changing the deck much. You may not be able to chuck block with them quite as well as the lions but they'll help you get a lot more blockers quickly. Whipcorder serves a similar function to Parallax Wave by disabling one of their creatures so cutting one Wave certainly isn't going to significantly hurt any matchup.
Zelyon, Gimbles just said he'd tested the mono-blue matchup, and it was positive. I've tested the mono-blue matchup and it's positive. You claim Powder Keg is a problem, which a) is not even remotely solved by adding the Rebel engine, since they're hit by Keg also, and b) is not actually a problem at all unless you overcommit. Furthermore, the deck has 3 maindeck Disenchant effects and FIVE more in the board, not including Null Rod, which, incidentally, answers Shackles as well. Furthermore, a resolved Armageddon makes Shackles completely dead. You claim that all these answers are "automatically going to be countered", which apparently ignores the fact that for this to happen, your opponent must be ignoring the rest of your threats, which will absolutely crush them before Keg or Shackles are even an issue if they go unanswered.
I have three problems with your assertions:
1. You're making claims about the deck which strongly indicate a lack of actual playtesting, and are even going so far as to suggest that your assumptions about the matchup are somehow more relevant than other people's actual playtesting results.
2. You're proposing a "solution" which in fact does nothing whatsoever to answer these "problems", and are in fact more succeptible to them. Your answer to Powder Keg is to add 4 more 1cc creatures? How is this logical? How are they going to be any better against Shackles?
3. You're completely ignoring jmorgue's extremely relevant commentary about tempo; this deck is fast and aggressive. The rebel engine is non-aggressive card advantage which takes the pressure off the control player and gives them more time to prepare their defenses against you. It's utterly preposterous.
The bottom line is that you're taking a positive matchup, which you assume to be bad, and are changing the deck so that it actually has worse game against this matchup. It is completely outside of the realm of logic or reason.
I'm pretty sure a resolved angel will kill them before they can play powder keg and get enough counters on it. ALso if you know they are playing keg don't over commit. If you are just laying threat after threat and they drop the keg. You hold back and do as much as you can. Once they drop that keg you really shouldn't play much more. Am i wrong on this assumetion. Please correct me if i am.
I\'m only allowed to post on SCG.
First, I don't like your accusation that I didn't test the deck. Look at the control deck posted below, I tested extensively against that deck and the it was a tough matchup.
If anything, your assertions that the 3 Sergent/3 Whipcorder addition I'm proposing doesn't help shows a lack of testing. The fact that you already determined how well the Sergents and the Whipcorders work even though I suggested them less than a day ago and from your replies, you didn't even decided they warranted consideration almost proves that all the claims you are making are based on no testing.
And how does the engine not help against Keg. The 1cc guys give you 2cc guys. And the Whipcorders can be played morphed for 0 casting cost. Your ability to keep a similar number of creatures at all casting costs is very helpful against Keg. If they keg for 2, the sergent helps you recover fast. If they keg for 1, the whipcorder you brought out help a great deal.
No, they never keg for the angel, that's absurdly difficult. But they play angels of their own as well as swords, shackles and thus can deal with an Angel on the board.
Please note, I'm not claiming that control decks are an exceedingly difficult matchups for this deck. But it's not nearly as easy a match as you guys are making it sound. If anything, after combo decks, blue based control is one of your tougher if not toughest matchup. Considering that trying to shore up combo is a lost cause, why not shore up control? Versatile uncounterable threats that can deal with many of their answers is a good place to start.
They can and will save counters for cards like Wave and Disenchant because your early critters aren't that dangerous. That's how you beat the deck. Counter the big stuff and disenchants and use Keg, Ophidian, or Shackles to deal with your small stuff. It works very well without the utility (whipcorder can deal with shackles or ophidian or their angels) or ability to quickly recover from Keg the Sergent provides. Trust me, the fact that Ophidian, Shackles or Keg (and my and most variants run all three) are your best bet against them. And if you hold back your threats, it will make winning that much harder for you once they do get a shackles out and only bother to counter your disenchants.
It sounds like the opponent you were playing wasn't holding back his counters for the cards that actually matter. Perhaps thats what accounts for our different results.
The deck is fast but it's not fast enough. Both Shackles and Ophidan come down early and they shut down most of your threats. This is also why it's a bad decision for you opponent to not save counters for the threats that actually matter. It's utility that wins the control matchup against decks that run Shackles, Keg, Phid, not speed. Remember, these control decks were designed to compete with faster decks like Goblins. This deck simply won't be able to rush them. It has to rely on the utility of its creatures. Whipcorder gives it that.
I have to go out of town for Thanksgiving now and thus probably won't be able to come online for several days.
That should give you a chance to test against a good control deck that can afford to hold back counters both with and without this engine. Lmk what you find after you do that.
Remember the agreement to disagree? We're going to go with that. Everyone who's tested the deck but you agrees that the Rebel engine is unnecessary to the point of absurdity. Further discussion on the matter will be moderated.
1. If you actually READ my post you will notice the part I made bold in the quote. Read it. I already knew the control match-up was strong and didnt need to be made more-so by adding the "rebel engine".It response to this comment, I just played a half-built form of this deck (minus two Priests cause I still need to find two; plus two plains) and this deck doesn't need any help with the control matchup. I swam right over MonoU Control. I had twice as many cards as he did and he ran out of counters or was tapped out for at least half my threats.
In response to any issues with the manabase. I ran 13 lands and 11 lands, this little difference is alot. When I ran with full priests I found that I might start with a few mana short. With 13 land the early game was eashy but I ended up with too much mana. I'm going to test with 12 but I think that 11 is the perfect amount. Just shuffle decent and even though mana may seem tight, you'll come on very strong and heavy all the way through the game. I find the early game similar to sligh and the late game equal to a control deck.
2. Tithe is the key to a good mana-base. The only reason I could see having too few mana is that you chucked Tithe to Chrome Mox where its expendable early threats like Lions/Hounds that you wanna pitch towards C. Moxen.
Edit: BTW Godzilla, even though this is off-topic, thanks for introducing a strong, viable white-weenie that has a great feel of the old white-weenie from days long past while upping its power through some clever card advantage engines. This has become my new pet deck of choice for playing over the past few weeks and Ive had a blast.
I like the control feel of this deck, it has an aggressive start making it strong early, then turns into Mono W control. (I know I've said this before but I wish to state it again)
For future notice it is best to improve weak matchups as opposed to adding new sources to beat an already strong matchup. In replacement of Armageddon, since the manabase is a bit low any LD might ruin this deck, would Sacred Ground be a good answer for this.. I haven't really seen any LD in my area so I couldn't really test this (especially because I'm not sure how big the threat of LD might be in 1.5.
Team Technology - Think it's good? Prove it.
The only real weakness we have to LD is non-basic hate, and since we are only running 4x Ancient Tomb, most decks wont bring in stuff like B2B and just survive off its MD'ed stockpile of Wastelands.
I believe Gimbles is referring to something along the lines of Mono-G Land Destruction (though not exclusively, necessarily), which run cards like Ice Storm and Thermokarst. Even your Plains are succeptible to these threats. However, I don't know that Sacred Ground would be a necessary SB option against LD decks; Tithe is actually very strong against these types of strategies, because they turn opposing land removal into card advantage for you. Further, you have Chrome Moxen which are immune to land destruction, meaning you should have a decent game against land destruction strategies without dedicating SB slots to improving this matchup.
I've tested the Mono-G LD matchups against Artowis' build (which I think is rather strong), and as I recall the matchup was in Angel Stompy's favor. I'm afraid I don't recall details, so I'm unable to provide them for you, but my inclination is to say that the SB doesn't need improvement for this matchup, even if you do happen to see it in your metagame.
Oh, well I never thought of Mono-G LD as much of a viable deck because too many games your opponents just get more land than you can destroy. Every now and then the LD player may get a nice grip of two or three lands trimmed out to the max with LD, but for the most part, I never seem to topdeck more than three or four forms of LD beyond whats in my initial seven.
Better Sideboarding If Not Maindecking.
After some thought and a little work I have come up with a quite strong solution to one of the biggest threat for this deck as well as a replacement for the questionablility of Armageddon in the sideboard.
I know this deck has the ability to make this a first turn play and a strong ability to make a second turn play of it. That solution is Trinisphere. Solidarity sit down, beltcher you lose. Thats the solution, it is completely playable and doable.
I have tested some and I find the mana is quite accessible to get. Since this deck has an extreme disadvantage to Belcher and Solidarity because of its inability to deal with it much at all I find that 3sphere would very much be a nice SB card for replacement of the armageddons which have been in question for most of the discussion on this deck.
SB:
-1 Disenchant
-3 Armageddon
+4 Trinisphere
I see no problems with playing this card, getting it out means no thank you to combo and it slows down other aggro matchups that might questionably have a chance of out racing you without the hate (sligh). You can go turn 1 (or 2 even) trinisphere, turn 2 morphed creature, turn 3 unmorph and your opponent is just getting their first goblin played, even if it's a lackey they are still done for. Even if you had to pay 3 and 2 life to play a mother of runes trinisphere is more than worth consideration.
Team Technology - Think it's good? Prove it.
If Belcher is in your meta, it seems okay; if you're worried about Solidarity, it's much weaker, since they might be able to answer it later, and either one will likely win you the game if they resolve.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
As far as versatile answers against a large number of archetypes go, however, Trinisphere is pretty high up there, particularly because the deck is so well-equipped to play around it. However, Armageddon is also there for the control matchup, where I think Trinisphere is not likely to be as effective. Hard to say for sure. I'll give it some testing.
Question: How strong are Tithe and Chrome Mox actually in this deck? We did some playtesting with Angel Stompy against various decks Friday night, which was my first real experience with the deck. I noticed that the deck is extremely swingy; sometimes it would get nigh-unbeatable hands, but sometimes it would just piddle out into a collection of unrelated parts. This isn't to say that I think the deck is bad, but rather that I think that it's a deck that requires agressive mulliganing to really play well. And Tithe and Chrome Mox are not cards I want to draw when I'm down to a five card hand, Chrome Mox particularly so. Tithe might provide card advantage in some instances, but many times I had to throw back hands that would've been amazing if the Tithes had been Plains instead, or even manlands (Weathered Wayfarer in it's place would, at the very least, beat, instead of doing jack diddly in the late game when I'm sitting with a Sword on the board).
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Interesting observations, IBA. I haven't noticed much inconsidtency in my testing, but I think it may be due to a difference in mulligan styles. Unlike most decks, I'm willing to keep an extremely mana-light hand, because the deck has so many ways of compensating. My general rule of thumb for mulligans with this deck (for lands specificatlly; obviously the non-land cards are relevant too) is that if a hand has either a Plains or a Chrome and any other mana source (Tithe, Tomb, Mox, or Plains) I'll keep it. Given the deck's curve, you have plenty of 1cc white spells, and you have plenty of colorless spells in the 2-3cc range, so as long as you have one white source along with pretty much any other mana source in the deck, you're going to do fine. You've got a total of 22 mana sources in the deck, so your likelihood of topdecking into a third source by turn 3 is high. Because you have 14 white sources, you should be getting at least one in every opening draw.
Incidentally, to answer your question about Chrome Mox, I feel it's necessary, simply because if you're running Cities in their place, your white consistency is too low, and if you're running Plains in their place, your ability to consistently cast a 1st or 2nd turn Morph or Sword goes down dramatically. This is, of course, working under the assumption that you think running Tithes is worth it, and I most certainly do. In months' worth of testing, I've found them to be unequivocably strong card advantage elements. I agree that they force the occasional mull, but in my experience their payoff greatly outweighs their drawbacks.
My only suggestion at this point would be to try some test games where you keep hands that you'd normally throw away (regarding mana content specifically - obviously if the rest of the hand is crap, throw it back), and see what happens. I could be wrong, but my theory is that the disparity you describe may be resulting from your mulligan style. Humor me if you will - give it a try and see if your results are any different.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote