I've been feeling pretty low on Revoker post-board in the BUG matchup... sure, he can lock out DRS but he'll never attack through it, and usually gets gobbled up in a Golgari Charm :P. Still, I've been leaving him in as an answer to Liliana. Going to try siding him out more aggressively in future testing, bringing in Cataclysm, RIP + Liege to start.
@ Finn - How have you been sideboarding for the BUG Delver MU? I checked out the primer here and on Salvation but it seems to have slipped through your (excellent) strategy + analysis.
Don't worry about having enough lands for Mangara. If you are talking about 3-mana creatures in general, then I agree. There is tension between having lots of them to get the most bang out of your Aether Vials and having few of them to make the deck more agile in its absence. But then we are having a different conversation. So I presume you mean the moving parts necessary to get the most out of Mangara. In that case, my advice is just let it happen. If you have Mangara in hand and too few lands to use him, use your 2-mana primary bombs. You have lots of them. And you will draw more lands. Unless you are stuck with all 3-mana cards, you will find it very organic to play the deck this way. You expend your primary spells (Mystic, Thalia, Revoker, etc.) to point the game the way you need to. Mangara and Flickerwisp come in only after your primaries have either been expended or you are prompted by something. Do not worry about which turn he comes down. If it is a match in which "turn 4" seems late, then yes. Side him out. But there are not many of them. Not when your turn 2 plays are stuff like Thalia and Phyrexian Revoker backed up by Ports and Wastes. And none of the BUG matchups are like that. They are games of attrition, and Mangara is the single strongest attrition element this deck has ever had. EDIT: also, even if you only get the one activation because you don't have a trick, go for it.
I am not picking on you, Jin. Not at all. But I seriously wonder even after all this exposure, do players really understand how to play this deck?
EDIT: Mr. Shine. Im sorry. I have not updated the BG matchup in ages, if there even is one. GTG. Infant crying.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
Shaman is a sitting duck with Revoker on the table. Thalia attacks in and he's virtually useless. Once you land equipment, Revoker can join in on the fun. He still swings for 2 and that's quite a lot for a white weenie deck. Golgari Charm will be hard to cast if you keep up the pressure on the lands. Thalia makes it a 3 drop. I would say cut BUG off from black as that is the hateful colour. RIP shuts down the green beasts and it's impossible to cut off blue.Originally Posted by MrShine
I think Cataclysm is a mistake. Team America is a tempo deck, so Cataclysm isn't very effective in that match up. tempo decks have generally been spell based and use little permanents.
Correct
What about Wastelands and Ports? I feel I need to keep up that pressure to ensure that Thalia has a legitimate choke on their mana.
Agreed. I never gun for Mangara. This is exactly how I play this deck. I just don't see how Mangara as super helpful in this match up. If you are losing, he's not great. If you are winning, he can seal the deal, but he still doesn't finish the game. He's susceptible to Decay before summoning sickness wears off. I just don't find him that valuable in this match up. He's much stronger versus control strategies.
In my SBing scenario, I take out Mangaras in favour of keeping in Revoker. Not only is Revoker more aggressive than Mangara, his effect is immediate when he lands. Given that BUG can be in a favoured position when Liliana/Jace/Shaman are active and already on the board, Revoker is just a much better draw. Mangara is slow and clumsy and needs help from Karakas to be efficient. I don't know if it is correct or not to use Mangara without Karakas. I never do because I don't feel like trading my 3 drop is worth it, but I could be wrong (please advise).
This is true.
I play it like how I used to play goblins. I focus on constricting their resources and chipping away at their life. I'm not sure if this is correct, but that's how I play it. I would choose to drop Thalia and Revoker before I think about dropping SFM. Batterskull isn't a priority for me when I play this deck. I am, however, fairly new to the deck. I've only been playing it for half a year on and off.
How much have you tested this matchup? The competent players I face have no trouble dismantling my opening of Thalia / Port / Revoker. You say Revoker still attacks for 2, but if its on DRS you can bet they'll block it with DRS, and if its on Lil then you don't want to lose it to an attack if it can be helped, lest they get Lil back online. Sure, Thalia can attack for 2 a turn, but that's not a very fast clock, and its not hard for them to resolve Goyf; they will get their mana eventually, and good players will keep land-heavy hands against us. And Port is never a permanent answer because they can still Decay / Charm in their upkeep. RIP isnt even a hard answer either, as they have 4 Decays and 2-3 Charms post board. Their excess removal and Huge creatures that we can only answer with STP / Mangara / 'wisp is Not Good for us.
Cataclysm comes in because they WILL flood with Goyfs / DRS / Delver and being able to actually destroy their lands and a creature or two, as well as Liliana, is very relevant.
I haven't been running Cataclysm in the SB for a couple of week.
I can understand the utility of it, but rarely I boarded it in.
My list is still fluctuating tho.
Please elaborate on "dismantle". I see Wastelands will jump at hitting the Ports, but if you are Wasting them out, I think they'd hesitate to Waste you back. Revoker, is still weak in the match up, but I prefer him over Mangara (Team America match up). Thalia is a beast here. She is hard to remove early on due to first strike. Mother of Rune has her back should removal be sent her way. Abrupt Decay is a Maelstrom Pulse/Vindicate which makes it significantly slower. Karakas protects Thalia.
I'm sorry, but if you can't even protect your Thalia, I have to ask you this question back: How much have you tested this deck? She is virtually protected by every other card in this deck. I am usually holding another Thalia before the first one ever falls.
Obviously the Revoker doesn't attack into a DRS. D&T has no draw, so every card is precious. DRS will not block Thalia because it does nothing except stall. So Thalia will keep swinging. DRS will sit there along with Revoker. Should DRS attack, then Revoker can swing. You can basically wait it out until you draw equipment. Jitte goes onto Thalia leading to the fall of DRS. Now your clock is doubled with Revoker attacking. Revoker does work even by not attacking. That's how good he is. His main deck inclusion as a 4-of is one of the reasons why I started playing this deck. Thalia's partner in crime. Two a turn is not fast, but you gradually add to that as you constrict them on mana. This deck is not a deck that wins quickly, but wins inevitably (hence the name Death and Taxes).
Well, if your meta game is that prepared for you with 3x Golgari Charm, then you have a different problem on your hand. In my metagame, the maximum number of charms I see is 2 in a SB. I agree, RIP doesn't shut down TA. That's why I said keep Revokers in to stop DRS. I also agree that Mangara is not good in this match up. Again, Charm and Decay are 3 Drops with Thalia. Lock up their mana with Wastelands and it'll become a problem. You are correct that they can use Charm and Decay at instant speeds. Great, I really don't mind if they decay my RIP. I rather they not kill all of my weenies with charm or kill my creatures with Decay. I'm sorry, but I forgot to mention, I also play Mirran Crusader in my deck, so Tarmogoyf isn't a big problem for me.
About Cataclysm: Okay, from what you just said, you definitely sound like you have no idea how to use Cataclysm. Cataclysm is used to stop decks that require a large amount of mana to drop bombs like 12-post, UW(x) Miracles, etc. These decks require a lot of land to operate, so Cataclysm will always be devastating above 4 lands. Team America does not play bombs. Dropping Cataclysm will just leave you at parity except for in very narrow situations like if you are losing. Playing/Drawing Cataclysm any earlier would mean it's a dead card. I would much rather have a live card all the time, than to have Cataclysm be a panic button. Use Cataclysm like Blood Moon. Just because a card can work against a deck doesn't mean it's good against a deck. You wouldn't bring in Blood Moon against Tempo Thresh because it simply isn't efficient.
If they are flooding you with valuable creatures, bring in more spot removal or another Jitte. Don't bring in Cataclysm.
Also, if you have a need for a panic button, that means you have already lost control. If you cannot control their lands, that is a problem because it is built into the inherent strategy of this deck. If you cannot understand this basic concept, then I'm sorry, but you're doing it wrong.
You don't play against controlled decks. This is reasonable.
Against BUG Mirran Crusader is a beast. Also someone said once in this thread that the more a deck resembles Delver tempo the less you want to bring Cataclysm in.
Yeah that was probably me who said that. I was about to repeat it actually. I definitely would not side in Cataclysm in this matchup.
When to actually press the button on an active Mangara that does not have a Karakas or Flickerwisp to double up with is a tricky bit to figure. If you do *not have the 3/4 max presence of these cards, I would be extra aggressive about using him just for the single target. Your odds of drawing an extra of either is less. If you do not *have to use Mangara right away you can get a handy mental advantage by convincing your opponent to either *not cast their best permanent or try to get you to use a single Mangara to clear the path. Pro tip - Look for facial expressions and hasty hand movements to see if the next attack is bait or not. If you are in that position, you have probably won.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
I'm curious, would Jötun Grunt be as good as I think it is? I've been running 2 instead of the Serra Avengers I used to have. (Replacing 4x Serra Avenger with 2x Brimaz, 2x Jötun Grunt). It's a nonbo with RiP and whatnot, but game 1 it gives you a great way to hinder Goyf, Snapcaster and whatnot.
Also, short tourney report. It was an 9-man pod at a gaming shop I go to so we played 4 rounds swiss. I tied for second.
Round 1: UR Delver. 2-0. Both games I go low but stabilize with a Jitte or Batterskull. I didn't actually really sideboard anything since I saw no need.
Round 2: UW Miracles. 1-2. I lose game 1 because of keeping a spectacularly bad hand. I win game 2 after revokering his top and disrupting his mana with wasteland+port. Game 3 I lose after a somewhat drawn out game.
Round 3: Burn: 2-0 I think. Same as round 1 basically but he had even less ways to interact with Batterskull.
Round 4: Belcher. 2-1. Game 1 I loses because he does belchery things. Game 2 I win because thalia stops him from doing belchery things. Game 3 I win because he could have done belchery things, but instead just played two tinder walls which I then revokered.
This has been a small report for a small tournament.
Please clarify. I'm confused about your instructions. So should I use it as single target removal or shouldn't?
My deck only runs 2x Mangara, but I'm getting more and more tempted it switch it to Brimaz. I'm sad to see Mangara's utility go, and I love Mangara-tricks, but he seems too slow in this day and age, where as Brimaz can bring you back from a losing fight.
Mirran Crusader is a beast with Umezawa's Jitte against any deck. Luckily, this deck has 5 copies of the equipment, if not more from the SB.
Like I said, Cataclysm is used for bomb-oriented control decks and not tempo based decks. You could bring in Cataclysm versus Lands too. Just make sure you have graveyard removal. This shows that Cataclysm isn't in there for blue decks, but rather in there for control decks.
My reading of this is that if you're running 2 or less Mangara and/or 3 or less Karakas there is a greater incentive to aggressively utilize Mangara as a single target Exile. Less copies of the "lock" means it's less likely to come together so one might as well get utilize 1:1 value if there is an opportunity to trade up or squeeze an opponent's potential resources/advantages.Please clarify. I'm confused about your instructions. So should I use it as single target removal or shouldn't?
My deck only runs 2x Mangara, but I'm getting more and more tempted it switch it to Brimaz. I'm sad to see Mangara's utility go, and I love Mangara-tricks, but he seems too slow in this day and age, where as Brimaz can bring you back from a losing fight.
I can understand the confusion though, one could also argue that if you're running less Mangara, but still hoping to use him as a late game lock, one could be inclined to hold onto him until there is protection. Mostly I think Mangara's value can be assessed match to match, when one knows what they are up against and has a fairly good idea of the 60 they are facing it's less challenging to make educated guesses on what needs a "slow Vindicate" versus whether one can afford to wait and that inevitability will be the king of the match.
TPDMC
I mean yeah, sure, its fine if we draw a godhand of Mom, Thalia, Port, Karakas, and multiple wastelands. We clearly DO have a strong mana denial strategy; all I'm saying is that it doesn't always come together perfectly, and there are hands that you need to keep sometimes that don't have these elements. Like hands with Crusaders (which yes, I am also playing. Best 3 drop in the meta right now IMO).
If you are on the play then this strategy is heavily favoured, but notice that on the draw they can still play their 3rd land and just Decay Thalia before you untap or get to play your Karakas. I'm sure you'll agree that waiting a turn to run her out to get Karakas up is far too slow.
People are also staring to play Disfigure in the SB, up to 3 (!) copies. Ugh.
I DO know how to play Cataclysm, I was just suggesting that I was going to start testing it against a deck that I was noticing winning by flooding out with Goyfs and a Liliana or two. Its obviously not the best card for the MU, but I have it in the board for other MUs anyway so I'm testing it to see if it has any value in a MU that is usually gets much worse post-board. And yes, if we've lost control, then we are in some deep shit, but I'm just trying to suggest that it can happen more easily than you'd think. Maybe I'm just getting top-decked out by these guys lately, having to play against multiple Goyfs and Decays. Wilt-Leaf Liege will probably mitigate a lot of problems, however.
All in all, yes, its not a terrible MU (I'll face it over Jund any day), I'm just looking for a new angle or two against a deck that seems to be gaining popularity in the meta.
I think what I'm trying to point at here is that post board, with them overloading on removal, they are better in the control role than we, and thus its on us to be the "aggro"; land early mana disruption and try to ride it to victory ASAP. In this sense, I'm just not thrilled with our anemic clock (~2/turn) and ability to get multiply blown out by a very popular SB card in Golgari Charm, which we usually have to run multiple creatures into to try and keep their mana locked (Thalia, Revoker, and if you have Mom, then her too). It could be that I'm misevaluating the roles, and if so, I'd like to hear what we can do to be a better control deck than them. Obv Mangara is a start.
Spellskite is awesome in this MU btw. In today's meta of BGx I'm probably going to try and find room for a 2nd in the board. I also bring in more spot removal for their Goyfs and 'Stalkers. 4 STP isnt enough, which is why I think Finn is advocating for Mangara here.
---
On that note...
Question:
Against which of the popular decks in todays meta are we the "Aggro?"
D&T is a Control deck first and foremost, but there are some MUs in which we need to be the aggressor, at least in some capacity. The ones that come to mind immediately are Miracles, and Lands.
The lines often seem kind of blurred. For instance in our match up against Storm combo both decks often try to aggressively pose the questions, them through Storm 8 and Infernal/Burning -> Tendrils; us through living til turn 2 and casting Thalia. The nature of our deck is trying to play a body that controls their lines of play.
If we define the concepts of aggro and control as the deck posing questions/threats versus the deck searching for/providing answers I would assess our clear roles as follows.
You have the clear dedicated control strategies that are packed with answers and via mass/recurring removal tend to gain inevitability as the game goes long:
Miracle Control - Aggro
Jund - Aggro
Blade Control - Aggro
BUG Control - Aggro
Nic Fit - Aggro
Lands - Aggro
Against many of the combo decks we play a Prison role more than an Aggro role, it just so happens that our lock (control) pieces have 2/1 bodies:
Elves - Prison
Painter - Prison
ANT - Prison
Sneak and Show - Prison
You really only have 1 Tier 1 dedicated Aggro deck anymore, where we are the control. Though you could lump many Tier 2+ strategies here - Affinity, Zoo, UR Burn, etc.
RUG - Control
Merfolk - Control (less so now then pre-TNN - there is more of a race element these days)
Then there are a bunch of midrange decks where the roles shift as the game moves in different players favors. In my experience this deck is often about finding the opening (especially in a post-TNN meta). Putting enough disruption down that you have a couple of "safe" turns and deploy an additional "beater" threat to seal the game before they can dig out of disruption. As such, this list is missing a good chunk of the metagame - Deathblade, Patriot, Team America - are all matches where we try to control Delver/SFM, their series of cantrips/manipulation via Thalia and their removal via Mother of Runes (Revoker vs Liiana), but also play a tempo game of clocking with Serra Avenger, Mirran Crusader, or anything with equipment before they stall the game with TNN or take it by equipping.
TPDMC
Thank you for the clarification. That was what I inferred as well. If that is the case, then I can confidently say that I never use Mangara in that manner (perhaps this is wrong). I tend to use Mangara more like your second suggested form of usage. Given that I have less Mangara (2 in my deck), I tend to only use him late game as I can get more value out of him. I usually use him to remove any threats that may come down after I have already locked out the opponent. Mangara's 're-usability' is one of the very few ways this list can gain actual card advantage. This is why I never use him as a 1-for-1. Perhaps the way I play him is why I find little value in him. He's cute, but he seems almost win-more the way I use him.
Sorry, I never keep hands because of Mirran Crusader. He's like a turn 5-6 for me because I spend a lot of time locking out mana and dropping weenies like Thalia, Revoker, and Stoneforge Mystic.
I also must disagree on your comment about 'godhand'. Having a combination of Thalia + Thalia, Thalia + Mother of Runes, Thalia + Wasteland, Thalia + Port, Wasteland + Port, etc. etc. are quite common. This deck has a natural synergy that works well with a mana denial strategy. I don't feel like I have to work for it ever. Between Thalia, Wasteland, Rishadan Port, Revoker [on artifact mana and elves (read Deathrite Shaman)], Mindcensor and Vial + Flickerwisp, I rarely feel the reliance on 'godhand{s)' to lock my opponent out on mana. You could have a slow hand, but I wouldn't keep those anyways. I'm quite aggressive about my early game, so my mulligans reflect that.
You are correct in that I would not wait for Karakas. Thalia is going to naturally draw removal. I accept that. That's why we play four of her. Being on the draw does make a big difference in the mana denial strategy though. However, Thalia has already done a fine job if she's drawing quality removal like Abrupt Decay early on. She's already slowed down the opponent by making them play removal on the crucial third turn without playing a threat.
You aren't losing much here. That's just a part of the game. They have four Abrupt Decays, so you play four Thalias. They are trading their crucial third turn for your 2/1. In exchange, you get an extra draw and you get to play another threat on the third turn. I think this is justified.
I can see this happening. Your metagame is just prepared for you. There really isn't much you can do against cards designed to hate on your colour except switch decks. Play more protection from black dudes to compensate.
Play three Wilt-Leaf Liege in your SB if your metagame is hating on you with three Disfigures and/or three Golgari Charms.
Spellskite acts as a pseudo Mother of Runes, so I can see why someone would want to bring it in in this match up. That said, I don't think bringing in more is a solution. You should look for quality rather than quantity and I'm not too convinced Spellskite is quality. He's okay as a 1 of in the SB as the fifth Mother of Rune, but I don't think i can justify a sixth mom. That'd just water the main strategy down too much. The 5 protection spells just aren't that great because they don't tax the opponent.
To address your question, I think Death and Taxes is always in the aggro role. It is a control deck, but it is an aggro control deck. That's why Phyrexian Revoker is played over Pithing Needle. We want to always be attacking even if it were only '2 damage/turn'.
Awesome post! I think your analysis is pretty tight. I definitely feel like a lot of the matchups are midrange-ish and do indeed depend on the specifc draws and openings, and often do devolve into races. It doesn't hurt that Flickerwisp is one of the best tools for this kind of turn-around race strategy ;).
EDIT @Jin - Thanks for your reply. Like I said, I don't think it is super terrible in the end but just (like a lot of other matchups), really tight and highly dependent on who's on the play with what kind of opening. You're probably right that 2 Spellskite is too much - and I agree that we need high threat quality (which is why I like bringing out Revoker right now). The 'Skite is in there mainly to provide a way to protect our equipment from Decay; I have him in the board for the UWR and Jund MUs too.
Hi people,
I'm trying to play Death&Taxes (newbie) and I would to test some (fun) cards to see their impacts.
What are your opinions about:
Blade Splicer:
+ 2 creatures for one card (good vs Liliana)
+ 3/3 first strike seems to be good
+ Good with Flickerwisp to clone the token
Archetype of Courage:
+ Giving first strike to all creatures enable us to easily block Delver or Batterskull without losing any creature (neither giving HPs to opponent from Batterskull).
Knight of the Holy Nimbus:
+ Flanking ability enable to kill any creature with 1 toughness (TNN die!) without taking any damage.
+ The card is almost indestructible except if opponent pay 2 for this (but we can stop the ability with Revoker or tap lands with Rishadan, but mainly I think opponent will rarely keep 2 manas only for this kind of cards instead of playing his spells). So the card cannot be managed except by Stp (but we have MoR).
Thanks.
Regards,
Dihensoeur.
So, I've decided that I'm going to be running Death and Taxes at SCG Milwaukee this weekend. Here's my list:
4x Mother of Runes
4x Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4x Phyrexian Revoker
4x Stoneforge Mystic
4x Flickerwisp
3x Serra Avenger
2x Mangara of Corondor
1x Brimaz, King of Oreskos
4x Swords to Plowshares
4x AEther Vial
1x Batterskull
1x Sword of Fire and Ice
1x Umezawa's Jitte
9x Plains
4x Rishadan Port
4x Wasteland
3x Karakas
1x Cavern of Souls
1x Horizon Canopy
1x Eiganjo Castle
Sideboard:
2x Wilt-Leaf Liege
2x Celestial Flare
2x Cataclysm
2x Ethersworn Canonist
2x Rest in Peace
1x Fiend Hunter
1x Oblivion Ring
1x Relic of Progenitus
1x Mirran Crusader
1x Leonin Relic-Warder
I'm pretty solid on the Main right now, but not 100% sure on the Side. Any comments and suggestions would be helpful. Thanks!
You're missing Karakas in the main.
I will Find a way...or make one.
Check out my wife! http://DanceKitten.com
Card Carrying Member: Team Mind Trick
Best.Fortune.Cookie.Evar: \"Among the lucky, you are the chosen one.\"
Noloam said, "i lost an unloseable game against miracles, where i accidentally tapped my tomb for lethal.."
Derp. Fixed now.
In Death and Taxes, a 3 drop is a big investment, so they better have a big impact on the board when they come down. Other notable 3 drops in D&T include Mangara of Corondor, Flickerwisp, Brimaz, King of Oreskos, Mirran Crusader. If you notice there are really 2 categories of 3 drops here. One that helps with the lock by being versatile removal spells that may also lock up mana, while the other helps with swaying the board completely in terms of aggro board positions. If you choose to use the cards you mentioned above, which one would you see yourself cutting? Does it make a big enough impact on the game? These are the questions you should ask yourself.
With the 2 drop, Archetype of Courage, you may have to consider what our 2 drops do. Given that this deck is supposed to lock up mana, this would help with the strategy a bit. Would this recreate a dilemma for the opponent to cast spells vs kill your knight? A control deck or combo deck would be less affected by your 2/2 than the flying Serra Avenger. Your clock would be slower. The aggro decks would just drop the bigger creature to not take the hit and then pay for your 2/2 later on. Giving the opponent this choice is never a good idea in MTG. Serrra Avenger is better in both situations I'd say unless your opponent is a poor player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote