[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Testing the Pyroclasm Deck

[Silverdragon]

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

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

[Finn]

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

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

[Lego]

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

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

[Bardo]

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

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

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

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

[Anusien]

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

I commend you for taking your time to write an article, as most people won't take the time to do such, and also think you can write better than most. You should be thanked for the time you take to write the article. That said, I don't like what you write. I'm sure I could do better.

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

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

[scrumdogg]

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

[Complete_Jank]

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

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

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

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

or

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


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


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

[Finn]

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

Thx for the lesson. I feel so enlightened.

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

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Matt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no reliable answer to Enforcer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[Firebrothers]

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

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

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

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

[Bardo]

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

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

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

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

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

[Parcher]

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

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

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

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

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

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

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

[Anusien]

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

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

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

Actually, the accepted manner of introducing and testing a new deck is to work on it with a small team of players you know offline, and then break it at a tournament. But whatever, most people don't have those resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Deep6er]

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

[Anusien]

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

Butts?

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

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

[Deep6er]

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

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

[Slay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AnwarA101]

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

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

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

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

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

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

Finally some common sense.

Kevy, the Kevster, Kevilingo;

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

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

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

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

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

80% of their counters is a rather bizarre figure.

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